jajrussel

Moontanman, I'm thinking I missunderstood part of your answer in post #5. I was thinking that as the star blew apart the innerlayers collapsed and pressure would build up and push back. My thoughts still are not clear but I am reading up on it when I can. Thank you.

What prevents the inner layers that are collapsing from bouncing back from the center? It would seem that the black hole already existed. Am I brought back to degenerate pressure?

Wikipedia – Says – During collapse, an electron-degenerate gas forms in the core, providing sufficient degeneracy pressure as it is compressed to resist further collapse. Above this mass limit, a neutron star(supported by neutron degeneracy pressure) or a black hole may be formed instead. My impression when I read this is that the black hole forms around the core. Is my impression correct? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe article is about degenerate matter. I have yet to figure out how to place the link into the forum.

What causes a nuclear bomb to explode? I am under the impression that the explosion is the result of pressure. Is this impression correct? I ask because I am just starting to try and understand how a black hole forms. To this point my understanding is a star collapses the pressure causes an explosion. The star then collapses again, except this collapse is unable cause enough pressure to create another explosion. I have tried to think my way around the next questions. Why doesn't the first explosion blow away enough mass that the formation of a black hole can not occur? Why isn't there a continuous chain of explosions?

I was trying to provoke a denial, when I said that time is energy. We view the universe as a whole. Energy/Mass is only a portion of the whole, as is the distance from one star to another. We can in a sense say that time is the whole, it is the universe. We can form a picture in our minds and say that the universe is expanding, but that is okay. It doesn't change anything because a second of time is only a portion of the whole. That portion is a ratio. That ratio never changes. When we use geometric shapes to describe the the universe the ratio seems to change but it does not. The only thing that changes is the dimensional value that we have assigned to the second. The seconds value grows, or gets smaller dimensionally, depending on how we project the geometric shape, but the ratio stays the same. When we look at the face of a clock with a second hand we can see as the clock ticks that the length of a second changes as we move from the center outward, but the ratio at any point of the second hand never changes when compared to the whole that relates to that point. We can make the clock bigger, we can make the clock smaller. The ratio stays the same while the seconds dimension change. The only real restriction that time insists on is that the ratio you are using as a time unit never changes, and this restriction forces a dimension change as the geometric shape changes. The speed of light points to the fact that the dimension distance to a star can change years and years before we would notice. We could point our laser at the star and reasonably assume that it isn't going to hit it. But that assumption depends on how far away the star is and what direction it is moving. I could point a flashlight at the star and have a better chance of hitting the star because I am using a wider beam of light. So, how wide will the lasers beam of light be once it has traveled that far? Dimensionally it is changing. I just might manage to hit the star. The question then would only be a matter of time. How long do I have to wait to get my answer. I don't have that long. Now, the distance to my cup. I have plenty of time to measure that. Dimensionally there is little change in the beam. The change is so small that the difference won't confuse my judgment. The same thing happens with the stick. The cup is close enough to where it appears to be. I can state where it is with reasonable accuracy. To you, from your house the distance looks much smaller. To you it looks like the cup is only a microsecond from me. To me it appears to be a second away. One could say that one of us is wrong, but neither perception is wrong, because the point as you see it is a ratio of how I see it. I substituted a time reference for a distance reference, but it doesn't matter, because we define a second as a ratio of time, and as a ratio of distance. The choice of measure you choose is how you define answer. The answer can be in meters, or in seconds, or be expressed as a ratio. It seems to me that it is a mater of definition. Is it a straight line, or is it a diagonal? By what unit will you define it? Meters? Seconds? A ratio? Straight lines? Diagonals?

Since my statement that time is energy, is denied or ignored. I can understand your puzzlement. I could not begin to tell you how to answer the Pharaoh equation, even accepting that time is energy. The new word you have invented seems as equally difficult to define, as the Pharaoh equation is to solve. Thinking that I have finally understood your question, where is the distance? I can only answer, I don't know?

Are you confusing allusion with illusion, or am I? The straight line distance and the diagonal distance both allude to the actual measured distance. Are you saying that because the straight line distance is also the diagonal distance that one must be an illusion? Not trying to confuse or anger, just trying to understand. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSorry, I didn't read your last post before I asked the question. Now I am thinking... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTo say that time measures movement is the same as saying time measures energy. Point the distance reference only in the same direction as the time reference. Straight up as in your diagram. Now A and B can be given an equal energy value and the distance they move can be seen in the diagram. Give A or B more energy. Then the positions of A or B will vary depending on the energy difference. Relativity as I understand it, allows us to assume our position is either A or B, and it allows us to step back and observe from a distance. From a distance we can see that what we are observing has = energy, or has +- energy. If A and B start together at zero, where they end up in time will depend on their energy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe thought is very simple, but when we compare it to the real world it can become very confusing. Nothing moves in the same direction, yet time seems limited to only one direction. I would compare time to an electron. We are certain that it is there, but can not say with any certainty where it is. We can only allude to where it is, and its actual direction. We can bring it in to our reference point and the questions remain. Where is it? What direction is it headed in? How do we describe what we can only allude to? Is what I have said even in reference to what you have said, or am I in my own little world now? Hmmm? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWe must allow that A and B can move along the diagonal to show the change in energy. Then decide that if time is the same for A and B then regardless the length difference of the straight line compared to the diagonal. They remain on the same level. So as you have asked. Where is the distance? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhat if we disallow the diagonal. Bring it back to where energy determines where A and B is in time, and say that time is not the same for A and B. All they do is synchronize their watches. Now they no longer have to remain on the same level. We have found distance and the universe does what the universe does.

I propose that time measures movement. If everything stops moving time is irrelevant. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe diagram is logical. It shows that A and B are moving in the same direction. It shows that A and B are 3 distance units apart. It shows that A and B have moved 6 time units. It shows that A and B are moving faster than light (the light path is longer than the A and B paths.) Unconventional, but logical. A fires the laser anticipating where B will be. Moving faster than light B intercepts the beam of light. Anticipates where A will be and bounces the light in that direction. Then A moving faster than light races ahead to catch the return beam at time unit 6 and that B is still 3 distance units apart. Unconventional, but logical. This is just an observation. I am not trying to anger. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt Shows that geometric shapes can warp reality, if one insist that reality must take the geometric shape. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI have to admit that for a while there I thought that you were either not serious or were being stubborn. For that I apologize. It has occurred to me that so long as you know both starting points and the distance they are apart at the starting point, you can determine B's position by firing the Laser only once. After that you can assume B's position at any time with reasonable accuracy. I concede that, that position will be a diagonal in my calculations. I am the one whom was confused. I have also been an idiot and I apologize for taking so long to see it.

I do agree the new diagram is better. The logical statement it makes is that time is not distance.

One second later as indicated on the diagram shows where B will be by the time light gets there. The diagram shows A, beaming light to where B was, not where it is. Then shows light bouncing off of what is not there and returning to A at its new position.

I am certain that I know what I meant. I do not agree that light followed the diagonal. The diagonal you show does not agree with your statement. The only indication I see of movement is an implication. Place B where it belongs on the diagram, and see the truth, or leave it where it is and ignore the truth.

As it stands the only thing you have measured is how far A has moved.

No, you are not measuring a hypotenuse, You have formed a equilateral triangle. You have measured the side of a equilateral triangle. Also, which the diagram does not show.

The diagram is not logical. Your statement was that it took 2 seconds for the light to get there, never mind the physics. The diagram does not show those two seconds. You can not make a logical statement that agrees with the diagram. Use light, or use a stick. Any measure is an agreement of two measures. You can not state that one is correct if the other does not agree. Your statement also alludes that I can physically measure the distance to something that is not there. I haven't figured out how to do this using light, or a stick. How do you bounce light off of something that is not there? How do I measure it with a stick?

The diagram does not agree with your statement. The diagram says that no time elapsed on the first portion of the lasers journey. The diagram is not logical.

The last diagram presented is flawed. Any statement that you make must fit within the logical statement of the diagram. The diagram shows that time is moving one direction. You then state that B' is the past position of B. The statement does not fit the logic expressed by the diagram. I know that you understand what I am saying. You can change the diagram so that it fits the statement, change the statement, or leave it like it is so everyone can see that what you are saying doesn't make sense. When you have B going in the right direction. You will then notice that the measured distance is a portion of the actual distance, and is not the actual distance.

It has become clear to me at this point that the only way the answer can be clear, is if you can find two lines on the square plane that are of different distance/length, so that you can compare them. Assuming that a diagonal is a straight line and every straight line is equal to the diagonal as you propose. All of your straight lines are equal in distance/length. The equation is above my limited talent. I made the assumption that any diagonal would equal the straight line distance/length, or be (+or-) in distance/length. I can only conclude that my assumption is wrong. I will retire to my corner and allow someone else the opportunity to solve the puzzle.

I don't believe that I have disagreed with the view of time that you present. I simply have more than one view of time. I see the door as existing in the past, and I see the door as existing in the future, and I can assume the door in the present somewhere in the middle. When I used the term in regard to me in my last post I was simply changing my point of reference. At the moment my knowledge of relativity is somewhat limited, but I have to admit that even though I know my knowledge of relativity is limited, I have allowed myself to believe that it is okay to view the universe from different reference points. To tell the truth, I pretty much thought that relativity demanded it. Maybe I am wrong. I don't want to shock you, but I even have a third view of time that I haven't completely thought out. Lastly, if you were abrupt, I did not notice. If it was meant that I notice, I apologize. I can be dense sometimes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedActually, I worded how I see the door wrongly. How I should have worded it is. I see the door in the past, approach it in the future, and pass through it in the present. Having done so if I want to approach the door again, I see it in the past, approach it in the future, and pass through it in the present.

The diagram declared where B is. I was just wondering where the star is. (Not a question.) I have accepted that what I see at B' is in fact at B, but only because you say so. To this point we have been talking about a star that is not where it appears to be. Basically, what I am doing is measuring to where the star was in the past, at B' the observation is the stars past.. So, applying the same thought to my cup of tea what I am doing is measuring from my position to where my cup was in the past. I get that. I never really thought about it this way until now, but I get it. When you consider the beginning and the end, we are drowning in the past. I can only see so far, and everything I see is the past in regard to Alpha – Omega. The question is; How far into the past can you reach? When I reach for my tea cup its location in the past is within my grasp, my sense of where it is, is reasonably accurate. The star on the other hand could lead me on a merry chase, if I don't start off with the assumption that where I have measured to, is only a single footprint that leads to where I want to go, and is not actually where I want to go. If I assume that B' is where I want to go, then that assumption is inaccurate. Now, time in regard to me. Everything I see is in the future. Disregard my shortcomings, and I could possibly go there. In regard to me the only direction I can go is into the future. In regard to me I can not see the past, I can only remember it. If I can't see it I can not go there. In regard to me the present is very small, the future is very large, and all I can do is assume the past because I remember it. Yes I could overlay Alpha – Omega and myself, make all kinds of bold statements then dare anyone to question them, but it is apples and oranges. As you have pointed out before our vocabulary has its shortcomings and those shortcomings allow bold statements. Now, to your statement that the distance is always the diagonal. Yep! It is one of those bold statements. Any straight line that intersects another can be a diagonal. The statement is true. As to your diagram though. In the real word a star can move in any conceivable direction. Your diagram has plenty of dimension, but it also points out which direction we are to view time as going, So in keeping with the diagram I can only only follow the red line, even if it is my desire to simply go from A to B. All of which seems to me to be the basses of your statement. The diagram declares how I am to see the world. So, in keeping with your diagram it is my opinion that a star observed at B' can not actually be at B, it has to be at C''. The distance assumed, by the statement that what is observed at B' is actually at B. The stars direction of movement is declared by the diagram, so the statement must agree with the diagram, or the statement is wrong... So, is the measured distance still the diagonal? I am not saying that it isn't, I am just asking if it is, and can I now say the measured distance, point B' is now a portion of the actual distance point C''? I could not say this when the stars reported position was at point B. If I am allowed to say that B' is a portion of C'', I can now make a logical statement that opposes the view that the measured distance is always the diagonal distance.

If B' is the cup of tea sitting on my desk the length of time it takes the light bouncing off of it to reach my eye is going to be very short so the diagonal position will nearly be the straight line position, so the cup may as well be sitting where it appears to be. If it is a star, well given what you have stated so far, knowing B' is only an apparent position I can only accept that the diagonal is an inaccurate measure of position. The star is not where it appears to be, so when I try to determine where it actually is, I can start by saying it is not there. Then try to figure out where B is based on where A and B' is. If I figure out where B is, then point out where it is to a friend, there had better be something shiny there, or they are going to assume that my cup of tea does not actually contain tea. They may be right.

I get the feeling that you are implying that the red line AB' when compared with line AB indicates displacement. If that is the case and AB' is the time line, and AB is your distance the only way to accurately compare them is to draw a line from B' to B and from A'''' to A which you sort of have. Now draw a line from B' intersecting line A'''' A forming an intersect point so that you have a square. Which should not bother you because it sort of brings us back to your first diagram and you seem to like the idea of using a square to show displacement. Now if you want you can add another red line from intersect point A''''A to B. Now compare the distance between intersect point A''''A and B' with the distance between A and B any distance displacement should show up there. Now Compare the length of one red line to the other red line. Any time displacement should show up there. Better yet, avoid the confusion go back to you first diagram and draw a red x connecting your corners, then take your measurements. It took me a while to figure out that the only accurate way to read your time line was in how it intersected with AB. The turns just added to the confusion. Unfold the second diagram then look at it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust in case what I said was a little confusing. Your second diagram is a map that when unfolded comes complete with map coordinates and a diagonal time line. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think in my own fumbling way I have figured out what you are saying. At one point I thought that there might be displacement due to the fact that I am turning. It takes time to turn, and the time it takes to turn would not be accounted for in the sum total distance, but when I unfolded your diagram I found that I was moving in a straight line and only had an apparent choice to do otherwise. So, now I refold the diagram, with the awareness that except for AB the rest of the positions are apparent, and that should I see a star at B' that its position is only apparent, so measuring the redshift can only result in a measurement that is apparent, and that unless I know the displacement I can not actually figure out where the star actually is? Am I getting close to figuring out what you are saying?

MT = The Universe. I haven't checked out your other thread close enough to know if it has a logical reason for being where it is. The assumption here being space/time. To this thread. You imply that all are at rest. Where am I to see this in your diagrams? You start off by saying, this is an example of A point standing still. That would make it a time coordinate, nothing else stands still. Any of your people can reach point A, but none of them can remain there, and point A will have a different meaning for each person because point A is a lot bigger than it looks. Each person can only see a portion of point A, thus they see it as a point in the past, then as memory. The only way they can begin to describe it is by saying this is an example of A point standing still. All of which assumes movement, so how can any of them be at rest? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI forgot for a moment that you have a right to claim them at rest. At least your claim is logical. If one is at rest they all have to be at rest. It is like taking a photograph, nothing in the picture moves.

In regard to displacement. Unless there is a significant change in the distance traveled while it is being traveled I would think that displacement would cancel out of the equation or at least fall within the probability allowed for an incorrect answer + or -.

I think that insane_alien is correct in the assertion that distance doesn't involve time, but that is because I see distance being an effect of energy, and time only as a good measure of the effect. Unless you force me to move at a certain speed it would likely take me longer to complete the circuit than say someone half my age, so time has no effect on the distance. The second diagram does not allow me to complete the circuit, but I can follow the path, again with the same result. However, not only will the person half my age complete the journey sooner, I would also be forced to travel further than that person in order to complete the journey, except for the fact that the path I am following is moving in sync with my destination. The diagram does allow for this following the red line. In reality AB, BC, CD, DA never change in definition, so there is no need to change the labels with each plain of the diagram. The time line is a sufficient marker. The answer should be AB, BC, CD, DA, but in keeping with your diagram it is AB', B'C'', C''D''', D'''A''''.

I used diameter when playing with the numbers because the steel balls size was given as a diameter. Using radius just changes the math a little, so I'll switch to radius for the moment. When you double the radius you more than double the area for storage. The area of a circle with a radius of .5 mm is .785398 sq mm. The area of a circle with a radius of 1 mm is 3.141593 sq mm. The area of a circle with a radius of 2 mm is 12.56637, and so on and so on. Add depth and you add mass. You can see that a disk with a radius of 2 mm is more than double the area of a disk with the a radius of 1 mm. So, I am somewhat confused when you say that whenever you doubled the radius the amount of energy you could store is also doubled. It seems more than doubled. I admit that using integrals to calculate is beyond my abilities for the moment, but the only way I can see you only doubling storage at double radius's is if you do use spokes, effectively removing mass from the disk, but why not take advantage of as much storage area as you can? Maybe I am not taking something into consideration here.