Butch

Just now, Strange said:

Nonsense

It does not surprise me that you feel that way, abstract thought is quite important... Literalists like you, however are quite important to keep us in line(which of course you do an excellent job of.).

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Mass is a property of matter. Electromagnetism is a force. They are two different things.

Ok, what is matter, is an electron matter?

Just now, Strange said:

That question is related to SR not GR. 

Anyone can ask a question. The reason he could develop an answer is because he had studied physics and was a great mathematician. 

He had written a number of other ground breaking physics papers before publishing his papers on relativity. (Including the one that would earn him a Nobel Prize.)

 

I agree.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Making up nonsense like this is not productive. 

Yes, after all there are much more important directions to take.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are severely underselling the role of math in that process.

I don't think so, Einstein has always interested me greatly. What brought him to GR was wanting to peek over the edge. The question that he pushed was "If I traveled at the speed of light and turned on a flashlight...? The same question grade schoolers ask everyday.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It was exactly those things. He studied physics and math, and used that knowledge to develop his theories. 

I disagree, it was his education that put the question in his mind, and the solution was an abstract image... Then came the math(Which he did need a little help with, and many thought him a fool to pursue something so much on the edge, when there was much more important work to do, after all Euclid certainly knew better.).

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Mass is not electromagnetic. Matter isn't, either. Charge is the property that gives rise to electromagnetic interaction, which is mediated by photons.

there is a whole host of particles which do not interact electromagnetically, and whose interactions do not involve exchanging photons.

Then what are they? I can "see" mass as em, as moving the center of charge in a universe filled(I did not say flooded) with em would meet with resistance.(Just an example of a possibility).

Ok, excuse my ignorance... If it is not  em, what is mass, matter and charge?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's interesting how so many people go straight to the bleeding edge of scientific knowledge, not realising that it probably takes 30 years plus to understand it to a level that you could add to it... and that's if you are a prodigy.

Well, this is one of the bleeding edges, I recognise that and I understand why... I don't mind being thought a fool... Those of you old enough will understand that.

I just see the edge and have a strong desire to peek over it.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

GR for example, even after a 100 years of incredible predicitve powers and verification, is still being tested even as we speak.

It was not math or education that took Einstein to GR, those are the things that allowed him to share it with the world.

What brought him to GR was his ability for abstract thought... I do have that ability(it makes me a very good fisherman.).

I can see some things with my mind's eye, I do have some formal education, I obviously need more.

If indeed em is everything we perceive, we can go to the singularity of the black hole and perhaps beyond...

If we cannot agree that em is everything, we can at least pursue a singularities effect on em(I believe to the singularity itself... or even beyond that).

Ok, lash me more if you wish.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

No.

Have I been mislead? Just looking for an approach to a singularty that we can go further with.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113717-particle-nature-an-illusion/

Just now, Strange said:

This is just wrong. It is so wrong it is not even worthy of an explanation. It is “not even wrong”. It is “you need to learn some basic physics” wrong. 

Nothing. 

Not possible, it is a relative thing...

Ok, consider this... My education in qm is very short, however I have gleaned the idea that all the forces... Indeed EVERYTHING... Is the result of em.

What happens to electric fields as we approach the event horizon? Taken even further(I think we can do this Swansont) as we approach (calculus fish again) the singularity? 

I would say that time is a frame of reference... We measure it with a "clock" a clock being a reference standard, that could be anything which has a constant period.

5 minutes ago, ydoaPs said:

I thought clocks measure other clocks.

Indeed they do, they also measure things that are not periodic.

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would that be a restriction? Stronger and weaker are relative terms.

Could an atom be rendered into constituent particles by a black hole?

On 3/14/2018 at 9:00 AM, Strange said:

This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it includes an alternative description of what the math says: https://www.space.com/34281-do-black-holes-die.html

(The math is about separating the positive and negative energy components of the vacuum as seen locally versus an observer at infinity. Although the virtual particle analogy is Hawking's own, a lot of people don't think it is a very accurate description of what the math says.)

Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

 

Is any of this possible if gravity is indeed the weakest force? How? Please educate me...

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

Here is a more detailed discussion of this: http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html

Dr. Hawking did not mind being wrong sometimes. More than anything he did, he spurred exploration... RIP.

On 3/13/2018 at 8:18 PM, Strange said:

MK? Martin Luther King?

No, Michio.

Sounds like crack pottery... But it also sounds like qm, however he did not micro as far as that.

On 3/11/2018 at 11:34 AM, Strange said:

Pop-science usually refers to simplified (and hence rather inaccurate) descriptions of science in the popular press.

This sounds like straightforward crackpottery.

Do you mean the realm of Dr. M K?

Stephen Hawking in applying qm to Singularities states that at the event horizon a particle and anti particle are condensed out of empty space by the energy near the event horizon. These particles are entangled then separated at the event horizon...

This is covered in the article at this link:

https://athensscienceobserver.com/2017/02/08/the-confusing-world-of-black-holes-and-quantum-mechanics/amp/

Isn't it much more likely that at the event horizon relative effects at c convert "things" into a relatively infinite energetic state(infinite frequency field?) as they pass and convert them back on the far side of the event horizon?

My thought is perhaps they are introduced into another universe where they would be manifested as the CMB of that universe.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Which is why tidal forces exist. You don't even need a black hole to tear things apart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

 

I am going to have to study some on this, these ideas are not something I have given thought to contesting before.

Atoms and molecules... Even compounds and macro structures are not held by gravitational force only.

Thank you, Strange you have me thinking.

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Ultimately atoms and maybe even the atoms would be torn apart. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification#Inside_or_outside_the_event_horizon

I will grant you that such forces might kill a living organism, you will have to go further to convince me of the destruction of matter... Time and space are being affected by a gravitational force that follows the inverse square... also we must factor in initial momentum of the visitor and the angular momentum of the black hole. Perhaps Mr. Hawking would have something surprising to say on the subject.

I see distortion along a path, not destruction of matter or even of a system. Of course everything about the path would be relativistic, no?

Perhaps this deserves a topic?

Let us not forget that ultimately we are speaking of em fields when we speak of matter.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. Long before that. For any reasonable size black hole the tidal forces would be quite enough to tear you apart before you fall through the event horizon. For larger black holes you might survive the event horizon but you would be very rapidly torn apart after that.

Torn apart in pieces that are how large?

On 3/10/2018 at 6:44 PM, Strange said:

Until they were ripped apart by gravity ...

You mean at the point where we have no knowledge of what happens? Check your math, after all forces near a black hole are relativistic, if you were an observer within the same frame as the car and the magnet you would not notice anything unusual... Who is to say you could not survive the transit?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Black of course being the absence of colour. Again, in the first instant, the colour of any object depends on what part of the spectrum is falling on it.

Black being the absence of any reflective properties (reference black bodies).

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Not really. Gravitational force would get increasingly strong until the tidal forces ripped the car apart from the magnet, and then ripped apart the car and the magnet.

But the tearing(stretching actually)would be uniform, although the dimensions would change the car would still be attracted to the magnet, no?

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

S-G works because of orientation quantization of spin. It is either up or down.

A macroscopic magnet is not limited to this. They will tend to precess or otherwise oscillate when you shoot them into a magnetic field.

Thank you, found a proper link with proper info...

No need to keep this topic open.

Please forgive me if I am rehashing something, I really tried to read all of this post...

Gravity appears much stronger than the other forces of nature because it has the greatest influence on our normal scope of experience... A simple proof that gravity is weaker is that a magnet can lift cars into the air.

I believe this would hold true even in a black hole?

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

In the first instant, we see because of the EMS of the EMR that enters the eye. Whatever information the nervous system takes to our brain, eg colour, depends on the exact type of EMR that has entered the eye. eg: Q;  What colour is an Orange in the dark? A: It is black and lacks any colour. From that simple reasoning I can deduce that [1] part of the EMR that has entered the eye, is visible, and [2] the exact colour depends on the exact wavelength of the EMS that has entered the eye.

Whatever perceptions/signals etc that the eye and its nerves send to the brain, is dependent on those points.

The orange is orange, even in the dark because it has the property of reflecting orange light. Just because we cannot see it does not change its properties... Unless we are talking about a cat in a box.

The positive to negative convention predates a good understanding of the atom... It is best to think in terms of hole flow and electron flow. Hole flow being the "flow" of the "holes" left in the valence of atoms and opposite to electron flow.