Leaderboard

From my own selfish perspective, I typically learn the most from those types of threads and would hate to see them cut off. Following a discussion between only knowledgeable participants is often too narrow and too deep for me to gain much. When someone flails about with misunderstanding, the responses tend to be more at a level I can gain from, and the suggested links for further information are generally very helpful to me. Oftentimes I'd like to ask similar questions myself but after one or two curt answers I tend to back off. I'm glad others aren't so sensitive.

The wavelength, more specifically, is inversely proportional to momentum, so two particles of different mass can have the same wavelength.

You need to take Q-reeus's comments with a pint of salt. He thinks GR is wrong and cherry-picks papers and articles that seem to agree with him. This, in particular, is not true. For one thing, there is no surface and so nothing to stop material falling in. And for another, the event horizon grows to encompass matter falling in so it wouldn't even appear to be "frozen" at the surface. You liked the statement that there can only be one reality and so, because from the point of view of matter falling into the black hole there is nothing to stop it, you can't have an alternative reality where it stops.

First, it is dangerous to presume that all traits are under selection of sorts. It invites speculations that do not hold well under scrutiny (the areas of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are evidence to that). Second, plasticity cannot simply be ignored. OP describes a situation of strong selection of the genetic aspect, which again is very unlikely arising from a variable trait.

There is a range when it comes to those proposing alternative ideas. Many are just filling in the gaps in their understanding with things that make more sense than the mainstream science they fell behind on. Science knowledge is so layered, but humans will try to fill in patterns based only on what they know, so it often seems to them that they've discovered something basic nobody else knows about. These folks just need better knowledge, but it's like any other kind of renovation; you have to remove the old junk before you can put the new stuff in. Some of those folks get so adamant about being right that they lose perspective and refuse to listen to any corrections in their stances. They ridicule and insult because everyone seems to not understand the simplicity of their arguments, and instead offer up useless evidence to refute what they should be trying to understand. Q-reeus was one of those, and it takes us a while to make sure our assessment is correct before banning these folks. It wouldn't have been fair to ban him after just a few posts revealed his disdain for mainstream knowledge, not without giving the other members a chance to chisel through a thick skull. We sure do appreciate when the membership reports posts from these folks. We obviously don't want to interrupt a discussion to point out every fallacious statement made, and we hope that most of them get pointed out by the participants in order to improve the arguments. But we also know how frustrating it is when you offer evidence and it's ignored in favor of incredulity or gut feelings or eternal skepticism. In the face of almost overwhelming confirmation bias, I think our members do a good job of isolating misunderstanding and misinformation so it can be hunted down and eradicated.

The thing is, sometimes, people don't know what they don't know and are genuinely naive to the rigours of scientific discussion. It would be unfair not to give everybody the benefit of the doubt initially, so that we don't frighten off those that are genuinely naive and don't have an ego and agenda to promote; rare though that they are.

Nah I don't think in most cases being super strict (nice how it works in my favour now isn't it;p ) is necessary, but maybe it is personal opinion but I think a lot of leeway is given to those who do not believe science (physics). I am still interested if you agree or have another reason for why this seems to happen mostly to the physics department. I definitely agree with the idea that everyone puts their ideas in right (appropriate) section. I want to make sure that you all don;t misunderstand me; I like this this forum, and I really apppreciate how helpful some of the people are, but I also agree with the OP that there is a lot of... BS here. And while I am mostly for discussion, I think there are limits. -Dagl

That’s part of the speculations guidelines

! Moderator Note Moved to the Suggestions forum as it seems more appropriate. We do have such a rule. It can be hard to enforce when people flood the thread with cherry-picked articles (often from unreliable sources) that they claim are evidence for their idea.

My lights are on a different circuit than the plugs I would use for an electric clock. Is it possible the breaker/fuse was tripped for the lights but the breaker/fuse for the plugs was still on after the lightning strike? If this is an apartment building, perhaps it took someone ten minutes to check the panel.

Recall that Strange made an unqualified "(the rest of the universe would look increasingly blue-shifted)", which is wrong. That's what I responded to. Sure within BH in-fall scenario an in-faller will encounter a mix of transverse and radial light ray components. The former becomes an increasingly minute contribution as in-fall proceeds to small r, since only the radial component of photon momenta get gravitationally boosted as in-fall proceeds. Taking as a given the formal GR calcs of Hamilton are indeed valid, it's (sort of) obvious from his color coded movie that for the vast majority of in-fall, redshift entirely dominates. And btw the reason all that is moot is that even assuming GR as Truth, contrary to many claims, it's no 'optical illusion' that the in-faller freezes at the EH - as seen from outside. The logical consequence of having coordinate c -> 0 at 'EH' is that from in-faller's 'stopped coordinate-time clock' pov the entire rest of universe is infinitely old at the moment he/she hits the 'EH'.

So, at the point that GR fails, and even beyond that point, you choose to "stipulate that we can reasonably use GR as a guide" ? Is there any possibility that you can explain why you choose to make such a stipulation, or that you may be able to supply any evidence to support such a stipulation?

There is nothing inherently "unclean" about sex as an expression of love-- sex is simply one valuable facet of a successfully intimate relationship.

No thanks for being so damn lazy in not pointing to relevant passages. That likely strategy - hoping I would bog down in the withering math, has backfired on you. Check out p202 2nd para. The heuristic summary there directly contradicts your own stated non-standard position - as I have pointed out now several times. You can keep asserting otherwise if you wish, but your earlier post forms a permanent record that hopefully not even here at SFN would mods stoop to conveniently back edit. As for the goading opportunist laughably elevated recently to title 'scientist', I continue to bite tongue re point-by-point responses, in deference to StringJunky's advice given elsewhere.

Distort on, it's evidently a sacred tradition here at SFN. And btw, how about showing some personal integrity and finally owning up to your clear error as per: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118740-black-hole-why-do-we-believe-that-matter-could-be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101387 Since you like dishing it out, be prepared to receive some too. I don't like it's (unobservable) flat Minkowski background either - a point I made at the outset. But no GW's have NOT 'put a nail in it's coffin' and that author & co-author maintain the opposite is true. The matter has yet to be properly resolved - in no small part due to the ongoing failure of LIGO_Virgo consortium crowd to publicly engage on the controversy. Telling imo. And btw if you're up to it, I linked there to articles where detailed calculations backing Svidzinsky's claims (on GW polarizations) are there for you to scrutinize for any errors. Good luck. Refresh your memory, and try and sort the ubiquitous hype from reality re EHT images: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118686-first-real-black-hole-image-10-april-2019/?do=findComment&comment=1100700 See my above comment to Strange. In your case, a particular personal integrity issue relevant here is failure to defend your personal, non-standard scenario as per: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101508 Again - where is that link to a reputable article backing your personal notions of how it goes? How gracious of Your Majesty. But I'm not feeling gracious towards you. Consider NOT living up to your signature line for a change. As for instance your LYING here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101610 To cover up your contradictory claim (any virtual particle) further back here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118748-questions-about-black-holes-and-the-hawking-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101530 And need I remind you of my disgust at your self-serving BS over in that 'Particle in a Box' thread? One expects high standards of those wielding authority. In too many instances, like here at SFN, reality is a cold bucket of water to that one. Here's a simple formula few here will agree with - but at least it's easy to follow: SFN = Neo-Marxist overrun shithole. That should be good for more red (me) and green (righteously indignant hostiles) - with nothing in between. Have a nice day folks - and I really mean that btw.

What a shit of an experience participating at SFN has turned out to be. Copping defamations ,distortions, and outright lies on a regular basis. If only hindsight was foresight.... Sigh.