MigL

lways thought Purple Rain was strange. I only wanted to see people laughing in the purple rain. Never even heard of purple gold.

I will have to disagree with you gentlemen. Light does not stand still, even inside the EH, so there is no 'catching up' to the light emitted by your feet. As soon as your feet cross the EH, light emitted inexorably moves towards its future, the center of the BH. There is no path backwards to your eyes, and you cannot catch up to it. As for md's assertion, any light that is 'frozen at the EH, is red -shifted to infinite wavelength long before it can reachthe head which is still outside the EH, even for such a miniscule distance. So if no light can possibly reach your eyes, what do you see ??? Sorry JC, we cannot be inside the EH of a BH right now. The geodesics that light ( or anything else ) must follow inside the EH, have only one direction, towards the future singularity. That is what GR predicts, f this happens to conflict with observation, I will stand corrected.

Light has no path ( geodesic ) that leads away from the center of the EH, or outside of the EH. We are not discussing tidal forces as md65536 specified an extremely large BH where tidal forces at the EH are trivial; and they have nothing to do with 'seeing' your feet ahead of you.

Taking the PoV of the feet first, infalling astronaut ( proper, where the clock is attached and moves along his worldline ), I would think, as he approaches the EH, he would see it grow disproportionately larger, as it rises up like a 'cup' to envelop him, eventually 'closing off' behind him, due to the strongly curved spacetime. This is all before any part of himself crosses the EH. Just before he is fully enveloped by the EH, and most certainly after, he would lose sight of anything ahead of himself, such as his feet, as light has no way of coming 'back' to his eyes. It would be a dark journey to his future doom.

I don't know. Ask Bill Gates.

All I'm getting out of all this, is that some people post fantasies without any mathematical or observational evidence other than to say that the current accepted system has lots of things wrong with it. We don't care that GR, QFT, Big Bang, etc. has gaps, is not applicable in some domains, or are not compatible with each other. They are works in progress, as is all Science, and in no way evidence for your particular fantasy. Provide evidence for your ideas, or ask the question whether your idea is possible ( and accept the answers given ). Don't make assertions, and say it must be true because the current system is wrong. ( at least until we get a WAG section; then you can post it there ) Oh, and I also got that INow likes Arby's. Used to like it at 3 in the morning, after bar-hopping in the US, in the 80-90s, then they started opening in Canada; had it once, never went back again.

You can easily calculate the aperture diameter needed, for visible light, to get the desired resolution. The Rayleigh criterion is a simple formula. You don't need to know how it works; just plug in approximate numbers.

The reasons why they clash are well known. Start another thread if you want those reasons explained to you. In this thread those reasons are off-topic.. Or, as Dim says, 'bollox'.

Pretty well constrained by the Physics ... Angular resolution = 1.22 * waelength / aperture diameter ( the Rayleigh criterion that Swansont mentioned ) This is a sci-fi story,; make something up.

You just joined this forum, and agreed to our rules. We did not join your forum. Seems a little early to start demanding rule changes.

The standard model is NOT gone. It works very well for some things, but is not applicable to others. General Relativity works for most things, but fails at extreme energy densities, like the center of a Black Hole, or the Big Band prior to 10-43 sec. Do you think GR is gone ?

And if my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle. ( should this be in the transgendered athletes thread ? ) It has been explained numerous times, that if an actual magnetic monopole was ever detected, not simply an 'effect' that acts as a single pole, Maxwell's equation could accomodate that without too much trouble. There would be big changes to the rest of Physics, however, from the 'standard model' to Cosmology. But, so far, NONE have been detected/observed, and chances are, they never will be.

The two sqiggly lines, one above the other, mean 'approximately'. That means the numbers are in the same ballpark ( and that ballpark could be large ). It does not mean that the ratio 6*Pi5 was derived in any way other than a noticed coincidence.

Yet here you are, trying to revise the standard model, when you don't seem to understand that the 'standard model' has been a work in progress for the better part of a century. You don't provide an alternate model, just vague notions that, as currently implemented, the standard model fails at some boundaries. Well so does GR. So does QFT. Should we scrap them and start from scratch ? No, we make use of the 'useful' parts, and keep working to better the model. The Speculations forum would be perfectly fine, if it wasn't for the many people who use it to regurgitate nonsense, without evidence, and then claim Science is elitist and not open to new ideas. We call those people cranks. Don't be one of them.

Nice try, Stringy 🙂 . Most sport governing bodies set out the rules before hand. The Olympic, Formula1, FIFA, PGA, etc. don't wait until an infraction possibly occurrs, and only then, decide on a case by case basis.

What has to be kept in mind is that Physicists are trying to describe the workings of the universe/reality with mathematical models. We have models that describe matter of being composed of irreducible quantum particles, which sometimes act as particles and other times as waves, but may be either/nether, and, as far as we know, have zero size. We also model some effects as particles ( easier to handle mathematically ), because of convenience. Solitons, inflatons, the previously mentioned holes are treated as particles by our models; yet they are not. On the other hand, some of our models ( QFT ) treat leptons, like electrons and neutrinos, and quarks, as excitation effects of their respective fields, and not a quantum particle at all. Sometimes it's hard not to confuse the model with whatever reality actually is ...

Thank you for the explanation. There is no confusion on my part, either as to the premise of the OP, or to the fact that, at those levels of competition, competitors get tested. And a trans-man will test positive. What do you do with that result, when it would result in the disqualification of any other competitor ?

Sorry for the confusion, CharonY. As we were discussing testosterone based performance enhancing drugs, I didn't think I needed to mention testosterone based hormone therapy which would ' enhance' a 'natural born' female's masculinity for gender reassignment. I apologize for my unfamiliarity with pronouns that multiply daily. Please explain trans-man and trans-woman, with respect to naturally born and surgically/hormonally reassigned, so that we may discuss the same thing.

Actual magnetic monopoles are excluded by one of Maxwell's equations. Nevertheless they can be included, and have been theorized to have been created at certain stages of the universe's early evolution, specifically at domain boundaries. One of the explanations for their rarity is the 'dilution' brought about by inflation and subsequent expansion. They are mostly predicted by GUTs, along the same lines as Supersymmetric particles, which have not been observed either. If you understand a little Physics and math, this might be a good place to start ... Magnetic monopole - Wikipedia What you describe is certain 'conditions' which act as magnetic monopoles, These same 'conditions' can also be treated as particles. ( like the 'holes' Studiot mentioned )

And this is exactly the level at which testing is mandatory, and 'artificial' doping with testosterone derivative ( performance enhancing ) drugs is flagged and deemed unacceptable. If you have two female athletes, one of which is on hormone therapy ( after reassignment surgery ), and the other is on testosterone based performance enhancers, they will both be flagged by the screening process. The one which is on performance enhancers we, as a society, have agreed should be disqualified. What do you propose to do with the one on hormone therapy? Simply ignore the positive result, as it is in the 'typical' range ? If she ups her dosage the the maximum 'typical' range, so that she is getting her therapy, plus a performance enhancement, is that still OK? If we have rules for testosterone based performance enhancers, we might want to put some rules in place for those receiving those drugs as therapy. Yet even after 4 pages, CharonY, people are still unwilling to discuss any specifics. If

As you have admitted, you have little interest in sports, so I need to make some 'background' explanations. Let's stay with Olympic level sprinting competitions, as Curious has already posted some data on the subject. Ben Johnson, Canadian, and the fastest man alive in 1988, was stripped of his Olympic gold medals in 1988, and awarded to the 'slower' Carl Lewis,apparently because C Lewis' doctors were better able to mask the presence of testosterone derivatives in his urine. All naturally born male, and female, sprinters at these levels of competition are screened for these performance enhancing drugs, yet you are proposng that transgendered sprinters should not be screened because their levels are 'close' to the naturally occurring levels of their reassigned sex. THAT is an unfair advantage. Do they get to skip testing altogether, and we have their 'word' that they are not boosting their levels ? Should we have a set baseline for levels in a typical male, and a typical female, when we both know there is no 'typical' ? Should we have a separate class for athletes who need to boost their levels because of sex reassignment ? I really fail to see how this is not worthy ( or too sensitive ??? ) to be discussed. Do we now just bury our heads in the sand for fear that discussion might 'hurt' feelings ? ( are we aknowledging that certain peoples mental framework migh not be robust enough to handle such discussion, and, that thinking they were born with the wrong sex, is the least of their worries ? )

Don't pick and choose, CharonY. What about the effects of Testosterone and othe banned, performance enhancing drugs ? I see the value in your post, INow, but don't see what it has to do with this topic. Are you saying the 'pack' behaviour of some of us on this forum is similar to the behaviour of those who target, and murder, the transgendered ? Are you saying any of what you posted is any reason NOT to inteelligently and respectfully discuss different classes in certain sports, and how to best apply them fairly to the transgendered ? How long am I 'allowed' to travel down this path of inquisition before I'm accused of 'havng an agenda' ?

Sorry if you got the impression I'm singling you out Zap. I've been part of the 'pack' myself; usually in science forums, in opinion based forums I tend to be the underdog and get ganged-up on. I don't consider this a 'rights' issue. Of course the transgendered have the right to participate in sports. However, if the sport is competitive, we have to find a way of levelling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage due to 'artificial' means, such as a surgical/hormonal procedure. This is already done in some cases, and in others has had considerable discussion by the sport's governing body. I'm sure you're aware that testosterone, and specific variants such as HGH and steroids are considered performance nhancing drugs, and are banned in many sports, for the simple reason that they bestow an unfair advantage to the user, and renders the sport uncompetitive. As I'm sure you know that 'Bladerunner', O Pestorius, had a surgical procedure to replace his lower legs ( due to a disability ) with composite prosthetic limbs. There was much discussion about it due to the fact that the prosthetics gave him considerable advantages over runners without. Would that have been discriminating against the disabled, or simply an attempt to make the sport competitive? ( all academic now that he's convicted of murder ) A sex change procedure involves both hormonal treatment as well as surgical proceures. If these treatments/procedures give that person an unfair advantage in that class of that sport, they are making it uncompetitive. That is the argument as I see it. I suppose Curious' over the top Mike Tyson example would be similar to mine if I had used The Six Million Dollar Man ( 80s fictional TV show ) rather than O Pestorius ( Colonel Steve Austin could run at 60 mi/hr ).

But like many other discussions which should take place about some important subjects, this has descended into absurdity, accusations and recriminations, just as quick. If people aren't allowed to voice their opinions without even the chance to explain their point of view, before the 'pack' jumps down their throat, and accuses them of having 'an agenda', how can we possibly have a serious discussion ? Whatever happened to tolerance for others' opinions ? I've voiced this sentiment previously, if all we want from members is an 'echo', then I, and other members, see no need to participate in opinion based forums, as there is NO DISCUSSION.

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear, Ken. What you call 'fossil fuels' are actually the source of many more products that are part of modern life. Plastics being the best known example. They are not only used as CO2 liberating fuels. If you want to consider all associated industry into a product's carbon footprint, are you also willing to consider the added energy/costs of synthesizing raw materials that were previously obtained from 'fossil fuels' due to any future ban ?