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 24th March 2018, 12:41 PM   #81
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Also no. Where did you buy your Physics doctorate?
Well, today cosmologys believe their own spaghetmonster

Spaghetmonster = expanding space + pulling force / curving space + extra dimensions + dark matter with pulling force + dark energy which doing magic with expanding space.

Well, space is eternal and infinity place which is nothing.

Space cant do anything!!!

There is eternal pushing force which density changing in between different areas in eternal space.

Eternal recycling "in" eternal and infinity 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, 01:19 PM   #82
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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.
I didn't say it was an artefact.

I THINK the poor fellow's problem is that he can't wrap his head around how can a big patch of nothing be curved. When you talk about space, he thinks "the void of the outer space".

And I was trying to explain to him in a very simplified form -- though apparently not very successfully -- is that it's the mathematical geometry of the space that is curved, rather than bending a piece of interstellar void like I'd bend a cable. The difference being that the latter doesn't really do anything: if I bend a cable in flat space, it's still in flat space.
__________________
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 24th March 2018, 01:23 PM   #83
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
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.
The funny part is that if you try to understand what he's saying, he does have forces pushing things together, except he insists that it's pushing together and not pulling together. I'm still not sure why that distinction is important, since at the end of the day it's the same vector.
__________________
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 24th March 2018, 01:31 PM   #84
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I didn't say it was an artefact.

I THINK the poor fellow's problem is that he can't wrap his head around how can a big patch of nothing be curved. When you talk about space, he thinks "the void of the outer space".

And I was trying to explain to him in a very simplified form -- though apparently not very successfully -- is that it's the mathematical geometry of the space that is curved, rather than bending a piece of interstellar void like I'd bend a cable. The difference being that the latter doesn't really do anything: if I bend a cable in flat space, it's still in flat space.
"he thinks "the void of the outer space""

?!?

Of the outer space?

Why you think that i think that way?

Space is everywhere.

We are moving in space all a time.

But quess what!!!!

You can not testing space anyway. You cant try manipulate space anyway.

And even you try to do something for space, Earth and we already moves faraway from that space where we just be.

And hole expanding visible universe already moves away from that area space where expanding visible universe just be.

And you idiot think that space, which is now outside expanding visible universe can curving someway to somehow someway.

And yes, i can proof with science experiement that there is no curving space.

How you proof that space can curving?

You dont see space!

You cant manipulate space!

You cant make any science experiement for space.

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

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

Last edited by Pixie of key; 24th March 2018 at 01:32 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 24th March 2018, 01:37 PM   #85
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Pretty sure that for example the Casimir effect experiment was basically testing empty space. So yes you can. And ditto for the geometry of space. Gravity lensing for example is testing precisely the geometry of space.

But ok, then explain in your words what do you understand by "space" when we talk about curved space.

Or better yet, is it closer to:

A) a chunk of empty void, or

B) a mathematical space and its geometry

Basically, if I drop an olive in my Martini, is that olive in space or not?

And what I was trying to tell you -- and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong -- is that A doesn't really do anything in GR, but B is what it's all about.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 24th March 2018 at 01:39 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 24th March 2018, 01:39 PM   #86
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The funny part is that if you try to understand what he's saying, he does have forces pushing things together, except he insists that it's pushing together and not pulling together. I'm still not sure why that distinction is important, since at the end of the day it's the same vector.
It is important if you want theory of everything for physics.

You think that there is material, radiate and four forces.

But there is only pushing force which density changing "in" space. Nothing else!!!

You try to put quantum theorys mathematic together with relativity theorys mathematic, but it not working together.

Quess why!!!

Because this theory are wrong.

Both have a wrong picture for universe!!!

.
__________________
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, 01:46 PM   #87
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Space can not be explored in any way.

Only "in" space moving and "in" space changing substances can be studied. Of course, "in" space moving and "in"space changing light can be scientifically studied.

You can try to manipulate the light motion path in space.

build a long wall or trough into space. to the other end of the telescope and look at the distant galaxy in the place you know. when the galaxy appears to be in a different place than you know it is, then you know that the curving space is a divinely divine god that does not exist.

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

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

Last edited by Pixie of key; 24th March 2018 at 01:48 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 24th March 2018, 01:52 PM   #88
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Pretty sure that for example the Casimir effect experiment was basically testing empty space. So yes you can. And ditto for the geometry of space. Gravity lensing for example is testing precisely the geometry of space.

But ok, then explain in your words what do you understand by "space" when we talk about curved space.

Or better yet, is it closer to:

A) a chunk of empty void, or

B) a mathematical space and its geometry

Basically, if I drop an olive in my Martini, is that olive in space or not?

And what I was trying to tell you -- and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong -- is that A doesn't really do anything in GR, but B is what it's all about.
Space is eternal and infinity 3 D place which is nothing.

It cant do anything because is nothing.

Only things which moving "in" space can do something.

Not 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, 01:54 PM   #89
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
I should hope they are wrong. If everything we know at the moment was 100% correct, that would mean there's nothing left to discover. And that would be boring.

BUT before we replace a theory with a new one, you need to show at the very least that it's actually a theory and not a hypothesis. That means, it must make concrete numerical predictions, and they must be checked against reality.

Because, see the whole point of science is that we calculate usable stuff based on it. We don't just want to hear a cool bedtime story. GR calculations for example are why we could design a GPS system that actually works. Or QM calculations go into designing a computer that actually works. Without that maths, you wouldn't even have a power supply, since that contains a Zener diode, which works precisely based on quantum tunnelling.

So until you actually show us the maths for your stuff, well, it's rather worthless for any scientific purpose. It's at best usable for a sci-fi novel, but you can't design a better GPS or a better rocket without the maths part.
__________________
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 24th March 2018, 02:16 PM   #90
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I should hope they are wrong. If everything we know at the moment was 100% correct, that would mean there's nothing left to discover. And that would be boring.

BUT before we replace a theory with a new one, you need to show at the very least that it's actually a theory and not a hypothesis. That means, it must make concrete numerical predictions, and they must be checked against reality.

Because, see the whole point of science is that we calculate usable stuff based on it. We don't just want to hear a cool bedtime story. GR calculations for example are why we could design a GPS system that actually works. Or QM calculations go into designing a computer that actually works. Without that maths, you wouldn't even have a power supply, since that contains a Zener diode, which works precisely based on quantum tunnelling.

So until you actually show us the maths for your stuff, well, it's rather worthless for any scientific purpose. It's at best usable for a sci-fi novel, but you can't design a better GPS or a better rocket without the maths part.

For me it is enough that i can explain with words and visually way how universe working.

I predict that galaxys born inside to outside.

And when we see it is that way, i think there is thousand and thousand mathematics people who start thinking mathematics for my ideas.

And who ever make that mathematic, he / she are going to be that one who making theory of everything.

So, why to heck everybody say that i have to make mathematic for my ideas?

It can be anybody else who making that mathematic and thats the way it is going to be if i am right with my ideas.

.
__________________
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, 02:16 PM   #91
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I didn't say it was an artefact.
I was careful to quote and to address only his reaction to what you said.

And I did so primarily as an excuse to remark upon the high quality of what had been written here in 2009, and to mention the detection of gravitational waves as new evidence for black holes.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I THINK the poor fellow's problem is that he can't wrap his head around how can a big patch of nothing be curved. When you talk about space, he thinks "the void of the outer space".

And I was trying to explain to him in a very simplified form -- though apparently not very successfully -- is that it's the mathematical geometry of the space that is curved, rather than bending a piece of interstellar void like I'd bend a cable. The difference being that the latter doesn't really do anything: if I bend a cable in flat space, it's still in flat space.
Yep.
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 24th March 2018, 02:28 PM   #92
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Well, this gravitational waves is just pushing force which get expanding material expanding faster.

It is pushing force which moving "in" space.

By the way. When wave moving in water, then separate water molecul moving "in" space relativity to each other.

You say, gravitational waves is space itselfs waves.

Can you explain what happening for space when waves moving in space?

Is there separate spaces which moving relativity to each other or what it is?

.
__________________
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 PM   #93
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
1. Well, if you want things moving in space, how about gravitons? Just about any kind of wave is quantized in quantum mechanics, including gravity. You know, since we were already talking about gravity waves.

So how about this: gravitons come from the sun and, err, PUSH us towards the sun.

As I was saying, it's the same vector anyway.


2. Well, the reason we like maths is that it makes it easy to (A) verify things, and (B) design new things. If we stuck to just words, you still wouldn't have a computer to write your ideas on.


3. Well, you know, it's statements of yours like "Space is eternal and infinity 3 D place which is nothing. It cant do anything because is nothing." that made me suspect that you're talking about the void in the first place.


4. See, the thing is, space is full of stuff. There's a reason I mentioned condensates earlier. Wherever there's a field, there's a whole soup of the corresponding particles.

E.g., if you have two metal plates forming a capacitor and apply a voltage, that electric field is a condensate of photons. There's a whole soup of photons in there, for that field to work.

E.g., we both are in a condensate of gravitons basically.

E.g., there's the a whole soup of bosons, which is among other things why anything has rest mass.

Anywhere you look, that space is full of that kind of thing. It's impossible to find any place that truly has none. In fact, it would have to truly have no matter anywhere around, because if there's an atom there, there's electric field, so you get that photon soup all over again. If there's anything with mass, even a photon, you get that soup of gravitons. And then there's those pesky bosons that get everywhere.

There's enough of them around to do any kind of "pushing" you may ever need to explain.

So there you go, you have things moving in space that do the heavy lifting for you. You don't have to get hung up on the empty space doing stuff, since you have those particles around to do it for it
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 24th March 2018 at 05:39 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 24th March 2018, 05:38 PM   #94
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
And I did so primarily as an excuse to remark upon the high quality of what had been written here in 2009, and to mention the detection of gravitational waves as new evidence for black holes.
Well, true, could use some help from more people of that caliber. I'll freely admit I'm a bit out of my depth here, but nobody else seems to volunteer to translate from "physics" to "crazy" But I guess most learned by now to stay away from pseudo-science discussions.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 24th March 2018 at 05:41 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 24th March 2018, 10:39 PM   #95
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
1. Well, if you want things moving in space, how about gravitons? Just about any kind of wave is quantized in quantum mechanics, including gravity. You know, since we were already talking about gravity waves.

So how about this: gravitons come from the sun and, err, PUSH us towards the sun.

As I was saying, it's the same vector anyway.


2. Well, the reason we like maths is that it makes it easy to (A) verify things, and (B) design new things. If we stuck to just words, you still wouldn't have a computer to write your ideas on.


3. Well, you know, it's statements of yours like "Space is eternal and infinity 3 D place which is nothing. It cant do anything because is nothing." that made me suspect that you're talking about the void in the first place.


4. See, the thing is, space is full of stuff. There's a reason I mentioned condensates earlier. Wherever there's a field, there's a whole soup of the corresponding particles.

E.g., if you have two metal plates forming a capacitor and apply a voltage, that electric field is a condensate of photons. There's a whole soup of photons in there, for that field to work.

E.g., we both are in a condensate of gravitons basically.

E.g., there's the a whole soup of bosons, which is among other things why anything has rest mass.

Anywhere you look, that space is full of that kind of thing. It's impossible to find any place that truly has none. In fact, it would have to truly have no matter anywhere around, because if there's an atom there, there's electric field, so you get that photon soup all over again. If there's anything with mass, even a photon, you get that soup of gravitons. And then there's those pesky bosons that get everywhere.

There's enough of them around to do any kind of "pushing" you may ever need to explain.

So there you go, you have things moving in space that do the heavy lifting for you. You don't have to get hung up on the empty space doing stuff, since you have those particles around to do it for it
Yes, space i not empty anywhere.

There is everywhere something which moving "in" space.

Threre is expanding pushing force which pushing from every direction to every direction.

But if it moving "in" space, it is not space.

If it movimg "in" space, is something which moving and changing "in" space. Not space!!!

This is very simple thing.

If it moving in space, it is not space.

Space can not move any way.

There is no place where space moving.

And because space IS nothing, it cant change any way.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 01:56 AM   #96
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Again, we're talking mathematical space. Which:

1. Can be curved. The most trivial example are the polar coordinates on the Earth globe.

There's a reason W.D. (who knows a lot more than me, BTW, so you'd do well to listen when he speaks) was bringing in Riemann, namely that mathematically a space is curved if it can't be laid flat without distorting it. And it can't. All flat maps of the Earth distort distances. The closer you get to the pole, the more stretched it is to lay it flat.


2. To address your building a trough in one direction example, let's take something similar. Let's say I get on a plane and fly in a straight line from the North Pole to the South Pole.

A polar bear might look at it and go, "sure, he flew in a straight line. In fact, along an axis. Constant height, constant longitude, only the latitude was changing. Can't get straighter than that."

A cartesian bear might look at it and go, "mate, that was clearly a semi-circle. That's as far from a straight line as it gets."

Which is right? Well, both are.

And one space being curved doesn't mean I'll miss the destination. I still reach the point I'm aiming at, the south pole, if I stick to following a longitude line. Even though it's curved.


3. Now, for something more complicated. Let's say there were some 2d creatures living on the surface of a sphere. They have their X and their Y along the latitude and longitude lines. That is their space.

How can they tell if that space is flat or curved. They only live in a 2D surface. They can't peek diagonally in 3d and see a ship disappear behind the horizon.

Well, there's maths that can tell you if that space is flat or curved. That's where Riemann comes in.

The same can be applied to creatures living in the 4D space of T, X, Y, Z. You can do the maths and discover that because of acceleration (see my elevator example) and those gravitons moving IN space and all, the maths say that while I superficially thought that my coordinate system is an orthogonal coordinate system, it is actually bent a bit. Because acceleration skews those lines.

It's not that space itself did anything to itself. (Well, or rather, let's not go THERE yet.) Acceleration did. And gravity is acceleration. And gravity is proportional to mass. So mass did. And since waves are quantized, including gravity, essentially those gravitons moving IN space did the work.


4. By now I'm getting the idea that what you're hung up on is having only one force.

And it might. I mean one force vector is just like another force vector.

But the force exerted on any particular point can have fundamentally different CAUSES, which basically we call different forces. It can be gravity or it can be magnets, for example. Those fields work differently, so we call them different forces.

And some of those are pushing things apart, which we call repulsion. And some are pushing things together, which we call attraction. It keeps things clear, see?

You might hypothesize that there's some unified "pushing force" that all those ultimately boil down to. And it might be. Although we'd want some evidence and maths first. But it might be.

But in the meantime there's no real point in flat out denying that, for example, some forces push or pull things APART, while others push or pull things TOGETHER. You kinda need that difference if you want to know if something will go up or down.

Going some version of "but there's a pushing force behind it all" is going into a detail that is irrelevant for the problem of whether my rocket will be pulled or pushed towards Mars or away from it. Which is kinda important if I want to do a slingshot around it.

Nor is there much reason to deny the different kinds of forces that affect something. E.g., if I were to fire a railgun projectile in a slingshot trajectory around Mars to hit something near Jupiter, it kinda is important to calculate the electromagnetic forces for the railgun and the gravity forces for the trajectory. Going some version of "but there's a pushing force behind it all" is again going into a detail that is irrelevant for the problem.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 02:29 AM   #97
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
"Now, for something more complicated. Let's say there were some 2d creatures living on the surface of a sphere. They have their X and their Y along the latitude and longitude lines. That is their space."

Nope.

You already know, there is no 2 D creatures.

So, that your example is stupid.

Lets take one dimension of and then you dont have anything at all.

if it does not have a thickness it does not exist.

if it has a thickness, no matter how thin it is , it is 3 D.

Thsts the way it is.

Sorry about that.

Well, mathematics people have some 2 D things in paper, but any 2 D creators do not really be.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 02:43 AM   #98
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
"The same can be applied to creatures living in the 4D space of T, X, Y, Z. You can do the maths and discover that because of acceleration (see my elevator example) and those gravitons moving IN space and all, the maths say that while I superficially thought that my coordinate system is an orthogonal coordinate system, it is actually bent a bit. Because acceleration skews those lines."

Well, with math you can think 2 D creators, but you already know, there can not really be 2 D creators.

So, why i should believe 4 D happening?

I dont need 4 D universe, because i already know that nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding pushing force with each other "in" 3 D space.

Only people who dont understand that, need 4 D universe in paper with hokkus pokkus mathematics.

By the way.

Of course you should using mathematics which working.

No problem with that

But if you really want physics theory of everything, you have to understand what kind of space really are.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 03:52 AM   #99
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Because you're already having a time axis too. Otherwise, you'd live in that Doctor Who episode where everything happens at once. You know, where cars and Roman chariots were waiting at the same intersection, and Churchill had been elected Holy Roman Emperor
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 04:55 AM   #100
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Because you're already having a time axis too. Otherwise, you'd live in that Doctor Who episode where everything happens at once. You know, where cars and Roman chariots were waiting at the same intersection, and Churchill had been elected Holy Roman Emperor
Well, you should write 3 D with time.

Time is not dimension.

Time is movement in 3 D space.

When separate nucleus of atoms moving in 3 D space relativity to each other, you have time.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 06:14 AM   #101
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Well, today cosmologys believe their own spaghetmonster

Spaghetmonster = expanding space + pulling force / curving space + extra dimensions + dark matter with pulling force + dark energy which doing magic with expanding space.

Well, space is eternal and infinity place which is nothing.

Space cant do anything!!!

There is eternal pushing force which density changing in between different areas in eternal space.

Eternal recycling "in" eternal and infinity space.

.
Would it be possible for you to structure your sentences as sentences in English are normally structured in very specific ways to make meanings clear. Many of your sentences do not meet this requirement - though to the extent they can be read they are also wrong in their content.
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 25th March 2018, 06:26 AM   #102
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Would it be possible for you to structure your sentences as sentences in English are normally structured in very specific ways to make meanings clear. Many of your sentences do not meet this requirement - though to the extent they can be read they are also wrong in their content.
Well, i have something with better english here

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 25th March 2018, 07:24 AM   #103
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Do you know why the expansion of space can not do 3D animation.

Or if done, it is incorrect and misleads people.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 09:27 AM   #104
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Well, you should write 3 D with time.

Time is not dimension.

Time is movement in 3 D space.

When separate nucleus of atoms moving in 3 D space relativity to each other, you have time.

.
What's stopping me from using time as a dimension? If it's a mathematical space, it can have any dimensions I choose. I can have for example a space where the dimensions are people's height, people's weight, and the BMI.

Incidentally although the resulting surface looks like a parabola, it's in maths a FLAT space. Because it curves only in one direction, it can be laid flat without distorting it quite trivially. No need to actually go Riemann on its ass to show that it's flat space, which is lucky, since writing maths in BBCODE sucks ass.

If I fly that airplane from the North Pole to the South Pole, I can draw a graph with T along one axis and Latitude on the other to keep track of my progress. Each point has both a T _and_ a latitude, to keep track of where my plane was at a given time. E.g., that I was at the Equator yesterday at noon, but I wasn't there yesterday morning or today morning.

If I do the same in cartesian space, relative to the centre of the Earth, now for each point I need to keep track of T, X, Y AND Z, to know where I was at any given time. That's 4D space already.

And I need that because it's important information. I'm not adding it just because I can. If I don't have a time axis, then I don't know when I was at the equator. Or if I want to know exactly what my speed vector was at any given time, I need to derive by time. So I need that information in my mathematical space.


And that brings me to what I keep trying to tell you: you're not speaking the same language as the rest of the English speaking world that has even a passing interest in physics or mathematics. You talk about one kind of space, we talk about a different kind of space, and then you equivocate the two and come up with an answer that doesn't even make sense for what the other guy is saying. Or have disagreements that are based on just parsing the words and their meanings wrong.

So instead of making sense to the rest of the world, you just sound crazy.

Now I'm relatively fluent in crazy. In fact, it's my mother tongue. (Hi, mom!) so I've been trying to translate here But other people don't put in the extra effort to figure out WTH you're even talking about, when you use the wrong language. And I can't blame them.

It would serve you well if you learned the language and concepts the rest of the world is using. I mean, who knows, you may even be able to support your hypothesis one day, but that's not gonna happen unless you learn to explain it in a way that the rest of the world can understand.

Just some friendly advice.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 10:10 AM   #105
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
HansMustermann, thank you.

Still, i think time is not dimension. There is 3 spacedimension and thats it. For time you need separate system moving in space relativity to each other. One year is when Earth take around Sun. That movement happening in 3 D space. It is movement in 3 D space, so it is not spacedimension.

Do you know why the expansion of space can not do 3 D animation.

Or if done, it is incorrect and misleads people.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 10:59 AM   #106
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Hence why it's more commonly known as space-time.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 11:04 AM   #107
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Hence why it's more commonly known as space-time.
I do not think PoK will ever get it. Like the Electrical and Mechanical engineers who have thought they proved Einstein wrong. Because it did not look/sound right to them.
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 25th March 2018, 11:06 AM   #108
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Yet the H-bomb (as well as other things) has demonstrated that it does anyway.
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 25th March 2018, 11:59 AM   #109
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
I do not think PoK will ever get it. Like the Electrical and Mechanical engineers who have thought they proved Einstein wrong. Because it did not look/sound right to them.
Well, can you understand that your body expanding all a time and it is later same "size" what Earth is now etc.

That kind of expanding is possibility to show with 3 D animation.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 12:47 PM   #110
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Oi, I'm not THAT fat, thank you very much

*Ahem* More seriously, I can show someone turning into a werewolf with 3d animations. Or flying on a broomstick. Or undead revenants clawing their way out of a grave, hungering for the blood of mortals. Etc.

And it's easy to "understand" too, even without 3D animations, since thousands of people did "understand" all three of the above in the late middle ages and renaissance.

Doesn't mean it's true, but you can make a mean 3d animation of it, if you're any good with Blender or 3DS Max.

Hence why we tend to prefer maths over 3D modelling skills when it comes to physics theories.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 12:51 PM   #111
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
I do not think PoK will ever get it.
Well, some things can't be helped, I guess. I tried to give him some kindergarten colouring book level idea of what we're talking about in GR, but whether he can or even tries to wrap his head around it... that's up to him.

Hmm... come to think of it, now I want a colouring book like that. "F is for Fusion"...
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 01:09 PM   #112
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Oi, I'm not THAT fat, thank you very much

*Ahem* More seriously, I can show someone turning into a werewolf with 3d animations. Or flying on a broomstick. Or undead revenants clawing their way out of a grave, hungering for the blood of mortals. Etc.

And it's easy to "understand" too, even without 3D animations, since thousands of people did "understand" all three of the above in the late middle ages and renaissance.

Doesn't mean it's true, but you can make a mean 3d animation of it, if you're any good with Blender or 3DS Max.

Hence why we tend to prefer maths over 3D modelling skills when it comes to physics theories.
Well, you can show someone turning into a god with 3d animations, but nobody can not show with 3 D animation how god created universe or how expanding space expanding.

.
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 04:08 PM   #113
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Pretty sure even I could animate a beardy guy in a robe, going "Let there be light". In fact, I would bet good money that someone already did

But just as well that 3d animation isn't the criterion for what is true or not. In fact, it's just about the dumbest criterion imaginable, given the infinity of things you can animate and aren't true.

Insisting that something is true because you can make a 3d animation, is literally as stupid, and the same kind of stupid at that, as insisting that werewolves exist because I can show you a 3D animation of one. Hell, I don't even have to stress my Blender skills to do it, I can capture an episode of Skyrim.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th March 2018 at 04:09 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 25th March 2018, 04:36 PM   #114
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Well, can you understand that your body expanding all a time and it is later same "size" what Earth is now etc.

That kind of expanding is possibility to show with 3 D animation.

.
You can show anything expanding with 3d animation. So what, it doesn't mean it is reality it is simply something to do with a half-way decent computer and 3-d program for it. You do know, I hope, that because you can model something in a computer program does not in any way show that it happens in real life/reality don't you????????
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 25th March 2018, 04:43 PM   #115
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, some things can't be helped, I guess. I tried to give him some kindergarten colouring book level idea of what we're talking about in GR, but whether he can or even tries to wrap his head around it... that's up to him.

Hmm... come to think of it, now I want a colouring book like that. "F is for Fusion"...
Well noted!!! And appropriate.
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 25th March 2018, 05:24 PM   #116
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
From Timeline of black hole physics: Big Gulp: Flaring Galaxy Marks the Messy Demise of a Star in a Supermassive Black Hole
Quote:
Suvi Gezari, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University, and her colleagues used a number of different telescopes to track the outburst from a supermassive black hole in a galaxy more than two billion light-years away as the black hole consumed a star that ventured too close.
Labeled at Wikipedia as "First visual proof of existence of black-holes" which is an exaggeration. This is first visual evidence of a red giant being disrupted by something that looks like a supermassive black hole. What we do not seem to see is something that looks like a supper-sized neutron star.
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 25th March 2018, 06:34 PM   #117
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well, as you say, it's somewhat of an exaggeration. I don't think anyone observed that matter disappear behind the event horizon, because THAT would invalidate GR right there. You know, because then it wouldn't be a coordinate singularity in our frame, if we see matter passing it in less than infinity time.

BTW, though, did someone at some point insist that black holes are really neutron stars? 'Cause I'm not sure why is everyone insisting they're not.

I mean, while I'm glad that there's visual confirmation, at a mass of 3 billion suns, if it were a neutron star:

1. There better be a good theory why neutron degenaracy doesn't work as QM says. I mean, there's 6 orders of magnitude between about 2-3 solar masses tops for a neutron star and 3 MILLION solar masses for that thing. If neutrons could hold that kind of pressure, yeah, we'd have been wrong by a whole 6 orders of magnitude all this time. That would be the most epic fail ever.

But MUCH more importantly:

2. The radius of a neutron star is proportional to the cube root of its mass, while the Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass. At a mass of 3 million black sun masses, yeah, that's around 12 orders of magnitude or so below the density of a neutron star. If it's a neutron star, it would be behind the event horizon anyway, and if not, I dunno, at that density it's not even a normal star, much less a neutron star

Well, YOU obviously know all this, but yeah, that's why I wonder if anyone actually insisted at some point that black holes are neutron stars. They better have some good math or some good meth for THAT to even seem about right

I mean, I could see the gravastar being a contender, and not disproved by this, but neutron stars? Really? Suddenly I'm glad I don't read more of the pseudo-science threads
__________________
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 25th March 2018, 07:54 PM   #118
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
From Timeline of black hole physics: Big Gulp: Flaring Galaxy Marks the Messy Demise of a Star in a Supermassive Black Hole


Labeled at Wikipedia as "First visual proof of existence of black-holes" which is an exaggeration. This is first visual evidence of a red giant being disrupted by something that looks like a supermassive black hole. What we do not seem to see is something that looks like a supper-sized neutron star.
It may be supper-size, but I really do not want to eat it. Or be anywhere near it!!!!!!
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 25th March 2018, 08:56 PM   #119
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
BTW, though, did someone at some point insist that black holes are really neutron stars? 'Cause I'm not sure why is everyone insisting they're not.
No one seriously says that black holes are actual neutron stars for the simple reason that they would be too dense for any known forces to stop their collapse to a singularity. But there are speculations about quark degeneracy pressure. If that was correct that we could have "neutron stars" that were too dense to be considered neutron stars and comparable to black hole densities.

What I did not see in the Scientific American article was any suggestion of evidence of a surface that the red giant impacted, i.e. there was nothing like a super-sized, 3 million solar mass, "neutron star" (or anything else) with a surface.

The pseudo-science is usually that black holes cannot exist at all because a century of GR textbooks are wrong or fantasies about them being plasmiods (plasma cosmology fans) or maybe z-pinches in plasma (electric universe fans).

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th March 2018 at 08:59 PM.
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 25th March 2018, 11:31 PM   #120
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Pretty sure even I could animate a beardy guy in a robe, going "Let there be light". In fact, I would bet good money that someone already did

But just as well that 3d animation isn't the criterion for what is true or not. In fact, it's just about the dumbest criterion imaginable, given the infinity of things you can animate and aren't true.

Insisting that something is true because you can make a 3d animation, is literally as stupid, and the same kind of stupid at that, as insisting that werewolves exist because I can show you a 3D animation of one. Hell, I don't even have to stress my Blender skills to do it, I can capture an episode of Skyrim.
Thats great.

Lets put somebody make 3 D animation which show how god maked a universe.

Then we can do science experiement and check out if that work out for us too 😂😂😂

I mean if you really have all information what you need to for new universe, i really like to see that 3 D animation.

.
__________________
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
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 03:28 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.