et pet

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Fact: While I have always agreed we will never observationally verify anything within a BH's EH, I also stipulate that we can reasonably use GR as a guide. 

Hope that helps.

    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?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You seem to have a problem with Beecee and words and phrases he has used ( fact, hope that helps, facts may aspire ), yet you have not posted any meaningful contribution to this topic.
What you are doing is not discussion.
Grow up, before someone decides to report you.

   fact :  beecee said:

54 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'll let you do the digging, OK?  At this time, I'm happy with what I have said and ignore your pedant and ignorance, but if any of our on line professionals object or find fault in what I have said, then I'll humbly listen as always. And "theory"of course is our best estimation as to what is happening and what we see and interpret at any particular time. 

Well looking at the whole context of what I said, and ignoring pedantic nonsense, I believe it entirely comprehensible  "And even in that scenario, facts may aspire to prevent you seeing anything outside....[1]Surviving tidal gravity effects, [2] Surviving any infalling matter/energy which would probably be in the form of lethal radiation, [3] and simply surviving longe enough, eg: Even our own SMBH, one would only have around 12 seconds or so, from the trip from the EH to the Singularity". Self explanatory I suggest.

     ad hominem , much?

       " facts may aspire ", So, are you trying to attribute a human trait, the conscious ability to aspire,  to a fact?

       https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspire

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

You fail to recognise that what I have posted aligns with GR predictions, which obviously we all agree has a pretty good track record. You also fail to see that in my statement I also used the word "probably" thus, "In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually "probably" see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return"

Plus of course the obvious that you seemed to have missed, in that Strange's statement was referring to the time and space changing places, while my statement was in relation to what anyone inside the EH would see outside the EH. And even in that scenario, facts may aspire to prevent you seeing anything outside....[1]Surviving tidal gravity effects, [2] Surviving any infalling matter/energy which would probably be in the form of lethal radiation, [3] and simply surviving longe enough, eg: Even our own SMBH, one would only have around 12 seconds or so, from the trip from the EH to the Singularity.

Couple all that with other contributions of mine and others, that clearly state that "while we certainly can never observe or have direct  evidence of anything about what happens inside a BH, we do have the overwhelmingly supportive and incredibly correct predicitive powers of GR, to at least form a reasonable picture of that which will never be seen.

Hope that helps.

 

    Digging yourself deeper.

   Maybe you should have began your statement : According to Theory, or my interpretation of the Theory of what one might see

   BTW : the Link you provided : https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html  , contains this disclaimer " The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity."

   re, your : "Hope that helps."   , "facts may aspire" means exactly what?

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes, most descriptions gloss over this. For perhaps obvious reasons. It is hard to comprehend how that might appear to our senses and we will probably never know.

    This seems to conflict with this "fact" that was Posted earlier?

12 hours ago, beecee said:

In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually probably see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return

2 hours ago, beecee said:

In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually probably see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return.

Fact?

2 hours ago, peterwlocke said:

cool. love to be able to learn even more.

Then you should be able to get quite a bit from this article...  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38366-w  

   Link to the Full paper published this month in Nature's Scientific Reports journal :  "In Situ Bioprinting of Autologous Skin Cells Accelerates Wound Healing of Extensive Excisional Full-Thickness Wounds"  :   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38366-w

16 minutes ago, stephaneww said:

The thing I can't remember from school it's : what mean in physics " 1kg/1m2" in simples words 

1 Kilogram Per 1 Square Meter 

3 hours ago, dstebbins said:

Neither of those seem to fit 100% what I'm looking for.

    How about :  cum hoc ergo propter hoc ?

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Actually yes, as per my last post, otherwise I am at a loss as to what you are trying to interpret.

Like I said, I find their account of what Dawkins said as misinterpreted. But certainly I do agree that it is very near, say around 99.9999% certain. If ssome want to interpret that as true, then so be it.

    I am not "trying to interpret" what "Dawkins said".

    The linked content is not "trying to interpret" what "Dawkins said".

  Could you please provide "QUOTES" of their misinterpreted account of what "Dawkins said" ?

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

OK, my apologies on that score...One can only conclude your link in an effort to explain logical fallacy and/or appeal to authority, most certainly misinterpeted Dawkin's view on the theory of evolution. 

from your link also

 

    No.

    The Linked content : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority , made no interpretation of Dawkin's view on the theory of evolution. 

 " Appeal to Authority,  argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

My post was not in relation to any logical fallacies.

       Mine was.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

It was your misinterpretation of Dawkins.

    I made no interpretation of Dawkins.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

You said.....

     No. 

     I quoted : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority  

20 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Personally, I think it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of evolutionary theory being true or false. The term is so hopelessly vague, and encompasses such a welter of heterogeneous claims, that an attribution of truth or falsity is misplaced -- much as it would be peculiar to characterize the Encyclopedia Britannica as either "true" or "false".

Philosopher of science Elliott Sober frames the problem this way:

 

    some might think that it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of any theory being true or false

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

As most reasonable scientists would say, and I'm pretty sure the same view is held by Dawkins, is that the theory of the evolution of life is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and therefor the accepted explanation by scientists. And of course being the only real scientific answer based on those observations. Abiogenesis also fits the same bill, as the only scientific answer available with the proviso of Panspermia.

     A couple of Logical Fallacies :  

                          Appeal to False Authority.

   " Appeal to False Authority  (also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority."  - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority 

                          Appeal to Authority 

    " Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.

When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority." " - http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_authority_examples/430/ 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Appeal to Authority is when someone uses their authority in one field in another unrelated field.

Are you sure of that, StringJunky?

What you Posted seems more like the the definition of an Appeal to False Authority.

   " Appeal to False Authority  (also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)

Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority."  - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority

            A couple of definitions : Appeal to Authority 

    " Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.

When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority." " - http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_authority_examples/430/ 

    " Appeal to Authority  argumentum ad verecundiam  (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory. " - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

2 hours ago, Janus said:

The lack of oxygen isn't the real problem with this idea. (your jet pack could be fitted with its own oxygenator supply. )

The real problem come from trying to climb upward at such a slow speed.  If we put our target altitude at 300 km (187.5 mi) at 5 mph, it would take 37.5 hrs to climb to that altitude. Earth's gravity will not have fallen off by much (to about 91% of earth surface value), so your jet pack will have to be thrusting against nearly 1 g of gravity the whole time.  So even if we use the 91% value for the whole trip, it would have to produce the same amount of energy as it would to accelerate itself up to 8.94 m/sec² x 135000 sec = ~1207 km/sec.

On the other hand, if you got up to a high enough speed while still near the surface of the Earth such that inertia alone (without an further firing of your engine) would lift to to 300 km, you would only have to accelerate up to 2.7 km/sec. 

And its even worse than that.  If you accelerate quickly, you use up your fuel while you are still near the Earth. Fuel used up near the Earth is fuel you don't have to lift any higher.

If you try to climb slowly, you have to lift more of your fuel to a higher altitude. But lifting fuel to burn later means burning more fuel now, which means that you needed even more fuel earlier to lift the fuel you are burning now...   This compounds very quickly, and the amount of total fuel needed increases immensely 

Earth launched rockets have to compromise.  They want to get up to speed at as low of an altitude as possible to reduce fuel requirements, but they can't get up to full speed too low in the atmosphere or they would burn up from air friction. 

Then there is the fact that it isn't enough to just get to 300 km above the Earth, in order to stay there, you have to be moving at least orbital speed, which is ~ 7.7 km/sec at that altitude.

 

   I thought that you had more or less covered the Orbital Mechanics (?) side of the coin quite commendably, Janus.

   I was focusing more on this : "Actually the helium balloon idea is good, I can just jet pack to space after I reach that distance "

   Some years back I remember some talk of having to switch from Jet engines to actual Rockets to get above a certain altitude.

   Maybe somewhere around  40 miles, 200,000 ft ? 

   In your previous Post about the fictional "Elysium" in (LEO), you had "put it out at 500 km".  ~ 300 miles?

   I guess I am guilty of more or less accepting and agreeing with the previous Posts and was simply addressing that one small aspect that had NOT been broached yet.

    Is any kind of Jet engine operational out to 100 miles...200 miles...300 miles?

On 10/28/2018 at 1:56 PM, fredreload said:

So uh, let's say I take a jet pack and I fly slowly into space in a space suit in auto pilot mode close to 5m/h upward(This is just the upward speed, it has nothing to do with the orbital speed). What is my orbital velocity when I reach space? My speed at that height relative to the earth's orbit speed? Actually the helium balloon idea is good, I can just jet pack to space after I reach that distance

   Hey, fredreload,

      I will most likely be told that I am wrong about this, but a "jet pack" will most likely have a Maximum Operational Ceiling because it needs oxygen to Operate.

     I am fairly certain that no just plain "jet pack" will allow you to or enable you to actually reach "space".

     Some 20 or so years ago, I heard reports that a Soviet Pilot had flown a Soviet Jet aircraft to somewhere around 120,000 -125,000 feet. I believe that it was reported to be one of the Soviet Mig series of Fighter Jets. This information was and is totally anecdotal - I was neither involved in the Flight, nor did I have direct access to any telemetry to verify the Flight.

      I am fairly certain, fredreload, some other Members will soon come along to either correct or further expound this information.

     Interesting idea, by the way!

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Interestingly, one of the most important things Einstein did was show that Newton was wrong.
Should  Einstein not have done that because  Newton was dead?

It's amusing to note that I didn't say Einstein was wrong. I said he was right, and that's how you could tell that Beecee hadn't quoted him.

Did you actually read what I said?

   Yes John Cuthber, I read every Post in its entirety.

   What I am fairly sure that you said was : 

     "You seem not to have noticed that, while he said it was a quote, he didn't say from whom.

Einstein said something similar- but since he got the grammar right that can't be who Beecee quoted.

With all due respect to Einstein; he's dead. It doesn't matter exactly how he said it, or even if he didn't."

 Part of my reply : speaking of Respect, John,  I refuse to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong , and one of the reasons is simply because he is deceased and cannot defend himself!

         ...okay...

   Albert Einstein got the grammar right, right? 

   Someone else's possible quote of possibly someone else's words, did not have the grammar right, right?    

   So, that someone else could not possibly have been Quoting Albert Einstein, right?

   So possibly...just possibly...one or the other might possibly have not been right, right?

   Well, John, there is no way that a proven font of knowledge of such high stature could possibly be wrong, right?

    Ergo, that only left the other one...

    At that point, John, it was out of my deep respect for the deceased, that I refused to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong.

    So no, you didn't say Einstein was wrong.   

          And neither did I.

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You may think I'm without compassion, but I have several quartz at mica mand. And massif amounts of evidence that suggests rock is non-living, despite what that awesome Who song says.

   Really, not worth thinking about you at all, other than maybe...:

   Eye wooden wanna-be yeah in the mid doll of duh night,

   wall kin two an Al E., wall kin too mize  ight.

   Noah wooden wanna-be use on this tree tall a loan,

   have TUE reel E knead me, save a Bro kin Bough N.

   Si they's ain't uh Lot O pea pull that eye reel E. lye cuh

  Ain't  uh Lot of reeze and it ano panacea, attain an other mill yeah an eye still wooden wanna-be yeah!

  Weight in 4 the seas and onomatopoeia, if use a grease say I...aye...

              ...eye's till wooden wanna-be yeah!

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is all unnecessarily off topic. So shall we drop it now?

  That is entirely up to you, Strange.

  I thought it was unnecessarily off topic when you initiated it, but then...you know...with me always being wrong...

  Well, I figured you would never bring up something that was unnecessarily off topic...and this is scienceforums...so...

   Anyways, Strange, are you going to drop it now?

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you want criticise anyone for that, it should be beecee, not John. You know, if you are being really pedantic. 

   Well...like I said : as you are ofttimes quick to point out, Strange, I can only be wrong.

   At any rate, I did NOT criticize John for that!

   He made no Quote without Citing the source.

   Why, may I humbly ask, Strange, do you think that beecee should be criticized for that?

   And, you know, if you are being really pedantic, could you Cite an example?

   btw : you seem to be able to quite quickly see, in any of my Postings, that which you judge me to be wrong about , and yet at the same time you seem not to be able to see any queries that I proffer...?

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

He was just correcting the grammar in beecee’s post, not trying to give an authoritative version of the original. But I’m sure everyone appreciates your work in that respect.    

   Well, as you are ofttimes quick to point out, Strange, I can only be wrong.

   Not sure why you would refer to 2 seconds on google as work, though.

   Actually, spending 2 seconds on google to properly Cite a famous Quote by Albert Einstein should be considered compulsory or de rigueur. 

You know like mandatory, even, aye? 

Wouldn't you agree?

   But...this is scienceforums, Strange, so I am not sure that many Members appreciate it at all.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

This isn’t normally a problem. Except when people think they have a proper understanding and either attempt to disprove it or create their own theories based on their limited understanding.

    ...or when those people that only have an over-inflated ego and very mediocre subjective understanding cannot help but belittle and berate anyone that they perceive to actually have a more proper or better understanding than them... 

  Again, wouldn't you agree, Strange?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Should be "as simply as possible".

Which brings me to another issue.

I know analytical chemistry quite well. 
But I can't explain it to the majority of people in the world.

They don't understand English.

Even some English people don't have the vocabulary needed to explain , say, relativity, without teaching them some new words.

And then there's the maths, which some folk don't know.

 

   In all actuality, John Cuthber, most Cites of that famous Albert Einstein Quote have it as "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler"- https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/

   - from a quick and easy site to Cite : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein :   

    "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

"On the Method of Theoretical Physics" The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933); also published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1934), pp. 163-169., p. 165. [thanks to Dr. Techie @ www.wordorigins.org and JSTOR]

There is a quote attributed to Einstein that may have arisen as a paraphrase of the above quote, commonly given as “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” or “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” See this article from the Quote Investigator for a discussion of where these later variants may have arisen.

The original quote is very similar to Occam's razor, which advocates that among all hypotheses compatible with all available observations, the simplest hypothesis is the most plausible one.

The aphorism "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" is normally taken to be a warning against too much simplicity and emphasizes that one cannot simplify things to a point where the hypothesis is no more compatible with all observations. The aphorism does not contradict or extend Occam's razor, but rather stresses that both elements of the razor, simplicity and compatibility with the observations, are essential.

The earliest known appearance of Einstein's razor is an essay by Roger Sessions in the New York Times (8 January 1950)[8], where Sessions appears to be paraphrasing Einstein: “I also remember a remark of Albert Einstein, which certainly applies to music. He said, in effect, that everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler.”

Another early appearance, from Time magazine (14 December 1962)[9]: “We try to keep in mind a saying attributed to Einstein—that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.” - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

    Heck, John Cuthber,  2 seconds on google gets you : https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-did-Einstein-mean-by-Everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler ; 

     https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ ; 

     https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_103652 ;

     https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/374887/meaning-of-make-things-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler ;

     http://wiki.c2.com/?EinsteinPrinciple ; 

      and those are just a few from the first page of results that you get : https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Something+should+be+explained+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+not+any+simpler".&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

   So, John Cuthber, it should be fairly simple for anyone to simply and properly Cite that Quote(pun intended!), but this is scienceforums, so...

   Again, as I opined in my previous Post : Seriously, though, it makes sense that if you honestly cannot explain something fairly simply, you probably do not truly and fully understand it.

On 8/28/2018 at 2:41 PM, Itoero said:

Didn't Albert Einstein supposedly said this?

I suppose there are many scientists that know there subject matter very well but don't posses the capabilities to explain/teach there subject matter to other people.

  There are a few similar quotes ofttimes attributed to Albert Einstein and others :

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." ;  

(attributed to Ernest Rutherford when Rutherford said) "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." ;  

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ;  

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

-  from : https://interestingengineering.com/13-inspiring-einstein-quotes-never-actually-said-by-einstein , 

     and ; https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35209/which-of-these-quotes-are-actually-einsteins-if-any

    Not sure that Albert Einstein actually said any of those phrases "verbatim"...

   Seriously, though, it makes sense that if you honestly cannot explain something fairly simply, you probably do not truly and fully understand it.

On 7/28/2018 at 11:38 AM, ali1382 said:

There is a question that bother's me a lot, and that why are here? But I think there is no answer for it... But what do you think?

42

On 10/26/2018 at 2:29 PM, Strange said:

Similarly, if you could restart our universe and run it again, you would not end up with our galaxy and the Earth.

   With all due respect, Strange, that may not be a given.

   Any entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again", obviously would not be restrained by the physical rules or laws of our/this Universe.

    That being the case, we honestly could not conceive of or even imagine what the total all encompassing extent of those abilities might allow that entity to effect upon our/this Universe.

    I am fairly certain that it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 

   So, no Strange, that need not necessarily be a given.

   An entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again" might just also have the ability to make it run exactly the same. Maybe even over and over, repeatedly...