Off-topic Discussion Split from: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

  That is true for black holes, but SMBH which have been directly observed with experimental evidence are not considered to be black holes.  THEY ARE SMBH!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!! BH's are BH's, pure and simple, whether quantum BH's [if they at all exist], Stellar BH's or SMBH's as found near the center of galaxies. It is simply a means of classification, much as we classify stars of different colour, and  size.

Also I saw something about BH density...To speak of BH density is an invalid concept, as according to GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level. Essentially a BH is nothing but critically curved spacetime with the mass at the core, at or below the quantum/Planck level, to the best of our knowledge and application of physics and GR.  

[MigL]

Funny how you claim not to be Religious, BeeCee, yet, when stressed out, you invoke Religious names .
( we're already in an of-topic thread; What can this hurt ? )

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Funny how you claim not to be Religious, BeeCee, yet, when stressed out, you invoke Religious names .
( we're already in an of-topic thread; What can this hurt ? )

Listen here matey, I went to a Catholic school and was also an Altar boy! Until I got the sack when found with another, drinking the altar wine behind the altar! 

[Conjurer]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

How can it be "known" if it as not yet been described?

But, if it is "known" you should have no problem providing a reference to it. Please do so.

It is a part of radar theory.  I use to be an electronics technician in the navy, and now I am working on my teaching degree in mathematics, for a second one.

In the transceiver of a radar, wave-guides are used that are at half wave lengths and full wavelengths, so the transmitter does not burn out the transceiver.  It does this by making wave-guides a half wavelength to the receiver.  Then the only waves that enter the receiver are the ones that are reflected from outside of the antenna.  Then the same piece of wave-guide can be used while only using one single antenna. 

This effect was known by Einstein, and he called it a spooky action at a distance.  He didn't like it, because it violated his special theory of relativity principal of the speed of light limit.  Personally, I don't believe that it actually does violate SR.  That would be getting into a whole other subject of what I believe are the hidden variables of quantum mechanics.

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

That would violate conservation laws. How can neutrons turn into electrons?

Also, what is the "half life" of a quark?

Please provide a reference to support your claims.

     It really seems like you should know more about particle physics for being a mod.  A neutron experiences decay where it ejects an electron and becomes a proton.  That is the definition of radioactive decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one ignoring conservation: how can photons (no charge) turn into electrons (with charge)?

I don't know how conservation of charge is maintained in that situation.  

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Lose their energy? Those damn conservation laws again.

 

Well, this has been fun. But your level of trolling is not really up to standard so I shall request that this thread is closed now. 

In this case, technology has surpassed the laws of physics.  That would make it a difficult problem to solve.  Einstein himself was unable to give an answer to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

 

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It is a part of radar theory.

What is? The conversion of photons into electrons? 

If so please provide a reference.

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I use to be an electronics technician in the navy, and now I am working on my teaching degree in mathematics, for a second one.

A teaching degree in mathematics? I find that implausible. Why were you so afraid of the simple arithmetic involved in checking the mass and diameter of a black hole?

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the transceiver of a radar, wave-guides are used that are at half wave lengths and full wavelengths, so the transmitter does not burn out the transceiver.  It does this by making wave-guides a half wavelength to the receiver.  Then the only waves that enter the receiver are the ones that are reflected from outside of the antenna.  Then the same piece of wave-guide can be used while only using one single antenna.

This effect was known by Einstein, and he called it a spooky action at a distance. 

The design of waveguides in radar systems has absolutely nothing to do with quantum entanglement. It is based on purely classical physics.

But, feel free to provide a reference to support this claim.

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

A neutron experiences decay where it ejects an electron and becomes a proton. 

You said neutrons can turn into electrons. Not the same thing at all.

Also, only free neutrons decay, so this doesn't apply to neutron stars.

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is the definition of radioactive decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Neutron decay only gets a passing mention there. Most forms of radioactive decay do not involve neutron decay.

19 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I don't know how conservation of charge is maintained in that situation. 

Maybe because that situation doesn't happen. Because it can't happen. Because conservation.

So stop making stuff up.

 

[Carrock]

38 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the transceiver of a radar, wave-guides are used that are at half wave lengths and full wavelengths, so the transmitter does not burn out the transceiver.  It does this by making wave-guides a half wavelength to the receiver.  Then the only waves that enter the receiver are the ones that are reflected from outside of the antenna.  Then the same piece of wave-guide can be used while only using one single antenna. 

Nope.

Wave guides are not one way guides of R.F. energy.

You're thinking of circulators, which rely on permanent magnets.

 

Quote

 

Ferrite circulators are often used as a duplexer. The operation of a circulator can be compared to a revolving door with three entrances and one mandatory rotating sense. This rotation is based on the interaction of the electromagnetic wave with magnetised ferrite. A microwave signal entering via one specific entrance follows the prescribed rotating sense and has to leave the circulator via the next exit. Energy from the transmitter rotates anticlockwise to the antenna port. Virtually all circulators used in radar applications contain ferrite.

At first in Ferrite circulators the energy divides into two equal parts at the entrance (1), but these parts get a different propagation speed by the influence of the ferrite.

 

edit or using half wave transformers etc to interface with spark gaps etc used for switching.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Carrock

[Conjurer]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is? The conversion of photons into electrons? 

Last time I checked, the universities that published this experiment were never accepted among the scientific community.

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

A teaching degree in mathematics? I find that implausible. Why were you so afraid of the simple arithmetic involved in checking the mass and diameter of a black hole?

I don't believe the mathematics for it would be that simple, and I don't think you would get the same answer.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

The design of waveguides in radar systems has absolutely nothing to do with quantum entanglement. It is based on purely classical physics.

But, feel free to provide a reference to support this claim.

You shouldn't get this confused with quantum entanglement.  Those are two completely different things.  Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with this type of particle precognition with an action at a distance.  Although, information is thought of to travel FTL in quantum entanglement as well.  It has nothing to do with the spin of the particles.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said neutrons can turn into electrons. Not the same thing at all.

Also, only free neutrons decay, so this doesn't apply to neutron stars.

That is not what I meant at all.  I was thinking about the same thing that happens in radioactive decay.

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe because that situation doesn't happen. Because it can't happen. Because conservation.

So stop making stuff up.

I do believe that conservation of charge may not actually be fundamental.  It could be an emergent property. 

To get back on topic, Nothing Has No Charge.  

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Last time I checked, the universities that published this experiment were never accepted among the scientific community.

More excuses to avoid providing any references.

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I don't believe the mathematics for it would be that simple, and I don't think you would get the same answer.

So multiplication and division are too complicated for you?

You will make a great math teacher. Are you just going to stick to teaching addition? Maybe with subtraction as an optional advanced module.

(And I did get the same answer.)

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You shouldn't get this confused with quantum entanglement.

You mentioned "spooky action at a distance" which how Einstein described entanglement: "Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[24] or "spooky action at a distance."" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)

(That is a "reference" by the way. It is how reasonable people support what they say. You should try it sometime.)

Quote

Those are two completely different things.  Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with this type of particle precognition with an action at a distance. 

So you need to explain what you mean when you say "particle precognition with an action at a distance" because it is not something I have ever heard of.

How about providing a reference? (I won't hold my breath as I am sure it is just something else you have invented.)

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is not what I meant at all.  I was thinking about the same thing that happens in radioactive decay.

You said neutrons can turn into electrons. This is obviously not true.

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I do believe that conservation of charge may not actually be fundamental.

Given your impressive ignorance of physics, I think we can ignore what your "believe".

40 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

To get back on topic, Nothing Has No Charge. 

This is just even further off topic (Although I'm not even sure what the topic is: "Conjurer's Random Fantasy Physics" perhaps.)

• Photons have no charge
• Neutrinos have no charge
• Gluons have no charge
• Neutrons have no charge
• Higgs bosons have no charge
• Z bosons have no charge

So apart from all those things with no charge ...

 

 

 

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

(And I did get the same answer.)

Prove it, and maybe you could finally end this nonsense of separate black hole and SMBH physics!

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You mentioned "spooky action at a distance" which how Einstein described entanglement: "Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[24] or "spooky action at a distance."" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)

That he did, but that does not include particle precognition!

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you need to explain what you mean when you say "particle precognition with an action at a distance" because it is not something I have ever heard of.

Obviously, among a vast majority of other physics principals you have never heard of.  I am sorry that it was never mathematically defined, so it never became a popular physics theory.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is just even further off topic (Although I'm not even sure what the topic is: "Conjurer's Random Fantasy Physics" perhaps.)

• Photons have no charge
• Neutrinos have no charge
• Gluons have no charge
• Neutrons have no charge
• Higgs bosons have no charge
• Z bosons have no charge

So apart from all those things with no charge ...

The Higgs Boson doesn't have a charge.  I don't know why you think it ever would.

[Strange]

Just now, Conjurer said:

Prove it, and maybe you could finally end this nonsense of separate black hole and SMBH physics!

What do you mean "prove it"? Do the simple arithmetic and prove it yourself.

Just now, Conjurer said:

That he did, but that does not include particle precognition!

That is because this is something that only exists inside your head.

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Obviously, among a vast majority of other physics principals you have never heard of.  I am sorry that it was never mathematically defined, so it never became a popular physics theory.

In other words, you just made it up because there wasn't enough nonsense in this thread.

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

The Higgs Boson doesn't have a charge.  I don't know why you think it ever would.

Errr... what?

I just said the Higgs has no charge. And listed several other particle with no charge. Because you said: 

52 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Nothing Has No Charge. 

Which is obviously just more nonsense.

[Conjurer]

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which is obviously just more nonsense.

Then I support you ending this thread from your repeated nonsense.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Remember?  I am the one here that is not supposed to know anything about black holes.  Why don't you show me how?  I dare you too.

You should stop making claims you can’t back up.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then I support you ending this thread from your repeated nonsense.

As I have provided references to support what I say but you just make unsupported assertions, I think most people will be able to tell who is posting nonsense. 

I will take this as your admission that you know there is no such thing as “particle precognition”

[Conjurer]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You should stop making claims you can’t back up.

Than teach me, or does this forum not do that anymore?  My semester has ended, and I would be willing to learn how the values of observed black holes have actually verified the theory of black holes.  I have the time.

[Strange]

Just now, Conjurer said:

Than teach me, or does this forum not do that anymore?  My semester has ended, and I would be willing to learn how the values of observed black holes have actually verified the theory of black holes.  I have the time.

I posted a link from the Event Horizon Telescope with information about this.

If you genuinely want to learn more about this then I suggest you start a new thread in the appropriate part of the forum.  

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

As I have provided references to support what I say but you just make unsupported assertions, I think most people will be able to tell who is posting nonsense. 

I will take this as your admission that you know there is no such thing as “particle precognition”

Something has to be defined mathematically in order to become a scientific theory.  If Einstein himself was unable to define particle precognition, then I don't see why you would expect me to.  I am not claiming to be smarter than Einstein!

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Than teach me, or does this forum not do that anymore?  My semester has ended, and I would be willing to learn how the values of observed black holes have actually verified the theory of black holes.  I have the time.

You’ve been resisting learning thus far. Tenaciously.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Something has to be defined mathematically in order to become a scientific theory.  If Einstein himself was unable to define particle precognition, then I don't see why you would expect me to.  I am not claiming to be smarter than Einstein!

I am not asking you to define it mathematically. Just provide a link to a (reputable) source showing that it is a real thing and not something you made up. 

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’ve been resisting learning thus far. Tenaciously.

It is only because I actually science.

 

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Than teach me, or does this forum not do that anymore?  My semester has ended, and I would be willing to learn how the values of observed black holes have actually verified the theory of black holes.  I have the time.

BH's of all classifications and persuasions are evidenced in many ways. The relatively recent dozen or so gravitational waves discoveries matching templates of different sizes of BH's has made the theory of BH's near certain, noting of course that a theory is as good as it gets.

[Conjurer]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not asking you to define it mathematically. Just provide a link to a (reputable) source showing that it is a real thing and not something you made up. 

If you wanted to look into it into further detail, I would recommend that you study quantum eraser experiments.  I believe particle precognition is the underlying reason of why these quantum mechanical experiments defy common sense.  They may have some mention about it.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If you wanted to look into it into further detail, I would recommend that you study quantum eraser experiments.  I believe particle precognition is the underlying reason of why these quantum mechanical experiments defy common sense.  They may have some mention about it.

I am familiar with quantum eraser experiments. Contrary to your claims, these are described mathematically. 

Stop dodging the issue. Please provide a reference to a quantum eraser experiment that talks about “particle precognition” because as far as I can tell, you have invented this.

Or just admit there is no such thing. 

[Conjurer]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am familiar with quantum eraser experiments. Contrary to your claims, these are described mathematically. 

Please provide a reference to a quantum eraser experiment that talks about “particle precognition” because as far as I can tell, you have invented this. 

That is radar theory.  The particle knows if the waveguide is a half wavelength or a full-wavelength, so it chooses the path that is a full wavelength.  That is why the particle is said to have a precognition with an action at a distance.  It will not choose the half wave path, and it will always follow the full wave path through a waveguide.  

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is radar theory.  The particle knows if the waveguide is a half wavelength or a full-wavelength, so it chooses the path that is a full wavelength.  That is why the particle is said to have a precognition with an action at a distance.  It will not choose the half wave path, and it will always follow the full wave path through a waveguide.  

This the same irrelevant bollocks you posted before. You just said it was related to quantum eraser experiments  

But feel free to provide a REFERENCE that says that radar systems use “particle precognition”. 

Or any reference that says anything at all about “particle precognition”. Anything to show this exists outside your imagination. 

[Conjurer]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

This the same irrelevant bollocks you posted before. You just said it was related to quantum eraser experiments  

But feel free to provide a REFERENCE that says that radar systems use “particle precognition”. 

Or any reference that says anything at all about “particle precognition”. Anything to show this exists outside your imagination. 

It is already proven by radar, just like satellites corrections prove the theory of relativity.  Radars exist and are functional in this reality!  Electrons are able to choose what path they go down faster than the speed of light according to if it would be a half or full wavelength.  It is a proven aspect of current technology.