ajb Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Newtonian gravity didnt need tensors, did it? Not beyond vectors. Or at least for sure as it is usually formulated for point particles. Doesnt the swartzman prophecy tell us that compressed mass is what interupts spacetime and causes a black hole? The exact condition needed to form a black hole are not known. However, for a spherically symmetric non-rotating mass distribution if the Schwarzschild radius lies outside the mass distribution then we have a black hole. Inside the mass distribution the Schwarzschild solution no longer applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) or, if the mass distribution lies within the radius...you say forward, i say drawrof I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius... None of that has any bearing on what I said. If you keep the test particle in the same spot, the acceleration will be the same. I dont think thats correct...If the radius of a mass shrinks, but the mass stays the same, it creates more gravity...because it retains more energy than before and exerts more back in terms of gravitational influence...you just have to wonder where the energy to shrink the volume of mass came from...normally it comes from the addition of more mass...we are adding a mysterious force to shrink the volume in this case without adding mass, and only accounting for it in the resulting increased gravity... Edited January 10, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Yes...Im being forced to read about MONDs now...and scalar fields and tensor vector scalar gravity... What an incredibly good time it is to express and confirm and re-evaluate and realize and unlearn and move forward...its friday night...i wouldnt have chosen another way to spend it...crashin...thanks for the discussion You need a year or two to get to your head around the problems, no just one night, unless you are a savant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius... Well you could look up the solution that describes spherically symmetrical mass distributions with angular momentum; i.e. the Kerr solution. Things here are a little more interesting than the not rotating case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius.... I believe the radius of the event horizon for a Kerr black hole is the same as for a non-rotating one (but the black hole is no longer simply defined by the event horizon). I dont think thats correct...If the radius of a mass shrinks, but the mass stays the same, it creates more gravity... Not really. The pressure will contribute a small amount to the gravity. But this is normally insignificant. (It can become significant for neutrons stars.) Edited January 10, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I believe the radius of the event horizon for a Kerr black hole is the same as for a non-rotating one (but the black hole is no longer simply defined by the event horizon). Not really. The pressure will contribute a small amount to the gravity. But this is normally insignificant. (It can become significant for neutrons stars.) It is possible he was talking about stronger gravity at the surface of the object. Like earth has g= 9.8 m/sec^2 now but if the Earth compressed to a BH the surface gravity would be billions of billions times greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I do believe adding spin would make the radius smaller...according to the energy used on spin...and if the object isnt symetrical, its just harder to define a radius... I don't understand the logic that went into this, but you're correct. A black hole with angular momentum will have a smaller event horizon than a non-rotating black hole with equivalent mass. The event horizon of a rotating black hole is given by: [math]R_{EH} = \frac{GM}{c^2}+ \sqrt{\left ( \frac{GM}{c^2} \right )^2 - \left (\frac{J}{Mc} \right )^2}[/math] where M is the BH's mass and J is its angular momentum. As you can see, adding angular momentum shrinks the event horizon. The maximum occurs at J=0, which is equivalent to a Schwarzschild BH with its event horizon given by the Schwarzschild radius. I believe the radius of the event horizon for a Kerr black hole is the same as for a non-rotating one (but the black hole is no longer simply defined by the event horizon). It's not quite that simple. The event horizon of a Kerr BH is no longer given by its Schwarzschild radius -- it is given by the equation above. In the case of Kerr BH's we also have a second, larger horizon to deal with called the ergosphere. Inside the ergosphere everything must rotate with the BH. Both the ergosphere and the event horizon shrink with increasing angular momentum. Edited January 10, 2015 by elfmotat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Thanks for the correction and detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 I believe the radius of the event horizon for a Kerr black hole is the same as for a non-rotating one (but the black hole is no longer simply defined by the event horizon). Not really. The pressure will contribute a small amount to the gravity. But this is normally insignificant. (It can become significant for neutrons stars.) It we compress the volume of earth down to the schwartzchild radius, it will contribute enough added energy to create a black hole...not at all a small amount at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It we compress the volume of earth down to the schwartzchild radius, it will contribute enough added energy to create a black hole...not at all a small amount at all... That's not how black holes form. They (usually) form when the core of a large star collapses in on itself due to its own gravity. There's no "added energy." If anything lots and lots of energy is lost because the outer layers of the star will (usually) explode in an event called a supernova. Also, just to add to the conversation, the Schwarzschild radius is not the radius at which gravitational collapse is inevitable. That actually occurs at [math]R=9GM/4c^2 = 9 R_S / 8[/math], which is a bit larger than the Schwarzschild radius. At that radius the internal pressure required to prevent gravitational collapse becomes infinite. Thanks for the correction and detail. No problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 I don't understand the logic that went into this, but you're correct. A black hole with angular momentum will have a smaller event horizon than a non-rotating black hole with equivalent mass. The event horizon of a rotating black hole is given by: [math]R_{EH} = \frac{GM}{c^2}+ \sqrt{\left ( \frac{GM}{c^2} \right )^2 - \left (\frac{J}{Mc} \right )^2}[/math] where M is the BH's mass and J is its angular momentum. As you can see, adding angular momentum shrinks the event horizon. The maximum occurs at J=0, which is equivalent to a Schwarzschild BH with its event horizon given by the Schwarzschild radius. It's not quite that simple. The event horizon of a Kerr BH is no longer given by its Schwarzschild radius -- it is given by the equation above. In the case of Kerr BH's we also have a second, larger horizon to deal with called the ergosphere. Inside the ergosphere everything must rotate with the BH. Both the ergosphere and the event horizon shrink with increasing angular momentum. I have been using my imagination...lets just say that, when you throw a curve ball, it can never go as fast as your fast ball, because you must use a good amount of energy to create the spin and now that energy does not exist in forward energy to create speed... With gravity, any offset in mass from a center point (non symetrical objects) would create a vector with spin...that mass can be inside the object itself, or not...in other words, an object can create its own spin, or can be effected to spin by another mass...but since considering all mass in any given volume of space to be "one mass", this should be intuitive... If the vectors effecting any given mass, create spin, then we will need more energy to produce gravity...so, if the schawrtzchild object begins to spin, we know we need to effectively shrink the radius, requiring more energy to now create the BH... That's not how black holes form. They (usually) form when the core of a large star collapses in on itself due to its own gravity. There's no "added energy." If anything lots and lots of energy is lost because the outer layers of the star will (usually) explode in an event called a supernova. Also, just to add to the conversation, the Schwarzschild radius is not the radius at which gravitational collapse is inevitable. That actually occurs at [math]R=9GM/4c^2 = 9 R_S / 8[/math], which is a bit larger than the Schwarzschild radius. At that radius the internal pressure required to prevent gravitational collapse becomes infinite. No problem Super nova do not create black holes on every occurence...therefore, I say, black holes are not a remnant of stars who supernova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I have been using my imagination...lets just say that, when you throw a curve ball, it can never go as fast as your fast ball, because you must use a good amount of energy to create the spin and now that energy does not exist in forward energy to create speed... With gravity, any offset in mass from a center point (non symetrical objects) would create a vector with spin...that mass can be inside the object itself, or not...in other words, an object can create its own spin, or can be effected to spin by another mass...but since considering all mass in any given volume of space to be "one mass", this should be intuitive... If the vectors effecting any given mass, create spin, then we will need more energy to produce gravity...so, if the schawrtzchild object begins to spin, we know we need to effectively shrink the radius, requiring more energy to now create the BH... Except the event horizon is not a "thing" that requires energy to move. It's a location in space. Black holes do not have extended volumes, so it doesn't really make sense to think of it as "spinning." It's probably more apt to just consider it an intrinsic property, much like spin in quantum physics. Nothing is "really" spinning, but the angular momentum is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 It doesnt matter how much energy you lose...if your energy can become compressed tight enough, you have a black hole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I was being a bit sloppy with my language earlier when I called a Kerr BH a "rotating" BH. I should have been more precise and just called it "a BH with angular momentum." Unfortunately this isn't nearly as easy to explain as simply calling it "rotating," because the latter evokes nice (albeit probably misleading) imagery in the mind. It doesnt matter how much energy you lose...if your energy can become compressed tight enough, you have a black hole... Yes, but earlier you were saying that you must add energy to form a black hole, which is simply not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Except the event horizon is not a "thing" that requires energy to move. It's a location in space. Black holes do not have extended volumes, so it doesn't really make sense to think of it as "spinning." It's probably more apt to just consider it an intrinsic property, much like spin in quantum physics. Nothing is "really" spinning, but the angular momentum is still there. Ya..see the event horizon precisely as "nothing"...not a thing... But we were talking about masses that become black holes...not the black hole after being made...in the case of masses that become black holes, if they are spinning, the radius that determines the volume of the black hole zone of volume needs to shrink...you allready agreed with that I was being a bit sloppy with my language earlier when I called a Kerr BH a "rotating" BH. I should have been more precise and just called it "a BH with angular momentum." Unfortunately this isn't nearly as easy to explain as simply calling it "rotating," because the latter evokes nice (albeit probably misleading) imagery in the mind. Yes, but earlier you were saying that you must add energy to form a black hole, which is simply not true. How did i intuitively know the results? Maybe my intuitiion and yours work differently? Or do you see everything I see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ya..see the event horizon precisely as "nothing"...not a thing... But we were talking about masses that become black holes...not the black hole after being made...in the case of masses that become black holes, if they are spinning, the radius that determines the volume of the black hole zone of volume needs to shrink...you allready agreed with that How did i intuitively know the results? I agree with the conclusion, not the logic that went into forming it. Your explanation still makes no sense to me. Super nova do not create black holes on every occurence...therefore, I say, black holes are not a remnant of stars who supernova A sometimes but not always creates B. Therefore A never creates B. That's probably the worst logic I've ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 What is happening in the scwarthchild problem? If you shrink the volume with the same mass to a certain point, it becomes a black hole... I agree with the conclusion, not the logic that went into forming it. Your explanation still makes no sense to me. A sometimes but not always creates B. Therefore A never creates B. That's probably the worst logic I've ever heard. Just as the math makes nosense to me, but still works... If supernove sometimes maybe lead to the formation of black holes, we can say that supernova maybe a spurious correlation to the effect The worst logici ever heard is knowing that my results are right and claiming my process of getting there is wrong... Gosh....I just got lucky again, eh? But all supernova do not lead to black holes..for you to make them the reason for black holes holds NO logic All i need is the mass in my finger to create a black hole... and the energy to reduce its volume...that logic is schwarwxchlld at work... Your logic doesn't hold up...you would have to show proof that supernova do create black holes...ill be waiting for links to proof Yknow what creates a black hole...when the volume of any given mass shrinks below the scwartzchild radius... Because you cannot see what I see, theres no reason to get snippy I have been using my imagination...lets just say that, when you throw a curve ball, it can never go as fast as your fast ball, because you must use a good amount of energy to create the spin and now that energy does not exist in forward energy to create speed...With gravity, any offset in mass from a center point (non symetrical objects) would create a vector with spin...that mass can be inside the object itself, or not...in other words, an object can create its own spin, or can be effected to spin by another mass...but since considering all mass in any given volume of space to be "one mass", this should be intuitive...If the vectors effecting any given mass, create spin, then we will need more energy to produce gravity...so, if the schawrtzchild object begins to spin, we know we need to effectively shrink the radius, requiring more energy to now create the BH... Super nova do not create black holes on every occurence...therefore, I say, black holes are not a remnant of stars who supernova Im not concerned with who was right about the radius or why...only that a radius does exist for a given amount of mass to now create a black hole... if you can understand why a spinning curve ball will never be thrown as fast as a non spinning fastball, by the same pitcher, then you can understand that when a mass is spinning, it needs more energy to create the same gravity as a non spinning mass If you undersand GR, there is no difference between me throwing a ball, or gravity effecting a ball...its just energy that moves the ball...if you spend some of that energy on spinning it, you reduce the power behind the vector that induces motion...cuz you decide to spend some on the vector that creates spin....that should make good sense and there would be no difference in the energy it takes to account for spin, and the energy it takes to account for gravity...but the same energy cant do both tasks....it must be divided -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) What is happening in the scwarthchild problem? If you shrink the volume with the same mass to a certain point, it becomes a black hole... Agreed. Just as the math makes nosense to me, but still works... Except that the math can make sense to anyone if they put the time into learning it. I'm trying very hard to understand what you're saying, but there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between any of your arguments and your conclusion. If supernove sometimes maybe lead to the formation of black holes, we can say that supernova maybe a spurious correlation to the effect This also makes no sense to me. Do you agree that supernovae can create BH's or not? The worst logici ever heard is knowing that my results are right and claiming my process of getting there is wrong... Gosh....I just got lucky again, eh? A young student is trying to simplify the fraction 16/64. He notices that there's a six in the numerator and denominator. He remembers from class that you can cancel numbers that appear in the numerator and denominator. This is how he solves the problem: [math]\frac{16}{64} = \frac{1 \! \! \not{} \! 6}{\not{} \! 6 4} = \frac{1}{4}[/math] This is the right answer, as you can check, but the logic the went into obtaining it was faulty. Right answer, wrong reason. But all supernova do not lead to black holes..for you to make them the reason for black holes holds NO logic I don't understand. All I said was that this is the way BH's usually form, by our current understanding. All i need is the mass in my finger to create a black hole... That's all you need? I'd be very curious to watch you create a black hole with your finger... from a safe distance of course. From Mars, maybe. and the energy to reduce its volume...that logic is schwarwxchlld at work... What energy to reduce its volume? You're jumping from one seemingly disconnected point to another. Your logic doesn't hold up...you would have to show proof that supernova do create black holes...ill be waiting for links to proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Core_collapse All the links you'll ever need can be found in the citations of that article. Yknow what creates a black hole...when the volume of any given mass shrinks below the scwartzchild radius... I thought I already explained that collapse becomes inevitable at 9/8 the Schwarzschild radius. I'm also not completely sure what point you're trying to make. Because you cannot see what I see, theres no reason to get snippy Thank you, o' chosen one, for gracing us commonfolk with your vast intellect. Im not concerned with who was right about the radius or why...only that a radius does exist for a given amount of mass to now create a black hole... Okay. I agree with you that such a radius does indeed exist. if you can understand why a spinning curve ball will never be thrown as fast as a non spinning fastball, by the same pitcher, then you can understand that when a mass is spinning, it needs more energy to create the same gravity as a non spinning mass Why would that automatically translate into a smaller event horizon? Explain how you're getting from A to B. I agree that the EH will be smaller, but I still don't see the logic here. If you undersand GR, there is no difference between me throwing a ball, or gravity effecting a ball...its just energy that moves the ball Energy doesn't "move" anything. Energy is a property, not a thing. if you spend some of that energy on spinning it, you reduce the power behind the vector that induces motion...cuz you decide to spend some on the vector that creates spin....that should make good sense Why does that translate into a smaller event horizon? and there would be no difference in the energy it takes to account for spin, and the energy it takes to account for gravity...but the same energy cant do both tasks....it must be divided This also makes little sense. Edited January 10, 2015 by elfmotat 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed. Except that the math can make sense to anyone if they put the time into learning it. I'm trying very hard to understand what you're saying, but there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between any of your arguments and your conclusion. This also makes no sense to me. Do you agree that supernovae can create BH's or not? A young student is trying to simplify the fraction 16/64. He notices that there's a six in the numerator and denominator. He remembers from class that you can cancel numbers that appear in the numerator and denominator. This is how he solves the problem: [math]\frac{16}{64} = \frac{1 \! \! \not{} \! 6}{\not{} \! 6 4} = \frac{1}{4}[/math] This is the right answer, as you can check, but the logic the went into obtaining it was faulty. Right answer, wrong reason. I don't understand. All I said was that this is the way BH's usually form, by our current understanding. That's all you need? I'd be very curious to watch you create a black hole with your finger... from a safe distance of course. From Mars, maybe. What energy to reduce its volume? You're jumping from one seemingly disconnected point to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Core_collapse All the links you'll ever need can be found in the citations of that article. I thought I already explained that collapse becomes inevitable at 9/8 the Schwarzschild radius. I'm also not completely sure what point you're trying to make. Thank you, o' chosen one, for gracing us commonfolk with your vast intellect. Okay. I agree with you that such a radius does indeed exist. Why would that automatically translate into a smaller event horizon? Explain how you're getting from A to B. I agree that the EH will be smaller, but I still don't see the logic here. Energy doesn't "move" anything. Energy is a property, not a thing. Why does that translate into a smaller event horizon? This also makes little sense. Agreement is the best feeling! You are not correct about "anyone can learn" the math...IQ of 70? And maybe not everyone can use their imagination to see certain effects as real...ever tried discussing an issue of visualization with a "dumb" person? Its just as hard as talking math...is there a better word for low IQ than dumb? sorry.... Ha...I was that student...and earlier in this post I describe the inverse square law to a T...without using or knowing the equation of inversed squares... I myself have not been convinced that there is any experimental type proof of black holes being formed by supernova...I will surely go rad what you posted I was only concerned that there IS a radius, at which point, a certain mass can take on BH properties...its the way I think...you can tell, im much less concened about all those vectors involved in figuring things out...I go right for the tensor...and it has proved to work for my understandings...this post is the first discussion ive ever had with anyone who had actually studied GR and has math info...But i have listened to 1000s of hours of youtube lectures over 10 years...so the math as you know it has been well described to me...the effects and how it all works together...just not how it works as math...and I know this means I will never be able to make a true model of my own...But I can hold a discussion about GR, cant i? I think im doing OK If schwartzchild is right, or there is ANY radius, that a certain mass, when reduced to it, will create a black hole...then its very easy to say that the mass of my finger has a radius, at which point, when compressed down to that radius will make a black hole...thats straight up easy logic for beginners...will it go through the effecst of gravity? yes...fusion...all of it... If you read the bit about the pitcher and such, i may not need to answer this... If energy exists, can it exist without a vector? I dont think so...look to the definition of vectors...every energy has a directional component called a vector Why does spin create the need for the radius to be shrunk in order to create a BH? Cuz the spin takes energy away from gravity...that radius is really a point at which you have given mass more energy, to effect gravity more and more until you get a black hole...and it all does come with a "direction" or vectoral component...Its about the collective "angles" of the vectors...they can create spin, or gravity, not both at the same time... You should note that when you shrink the volume of any mass, its takes energy...the common term is called compressive energy...thats what it apparently takes to shrink any volume...In our example, we have been trying to shrink the volume of a mass without adding pressure.... How does nature pull this off? It adds more mass...how? fusion...turning light little matter into heavy friggin matter in the same relative volume... I have a posting called "math as a waveform science"...it implies that math was never meant to count digits or to account for them...it implies that math digitizes waveforms in order to understand them...but is that the only way to interpret the knowledge of waveforms? Waveforms complete math as they combine and interact...no digitizing needed in that process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) You are not correct about "anyone can learn" the math...IQ of 70? And maybe not everyone can use their imagination to see certain effects as real...ever tried discussing an issue of visualization with a "dumb" person? Its just as hard as talking math...is there a better word for low IQ than dumb? sorry.... Anyone without a mental handicap.** Ha...I was that student... So did you learn from your mistake? Did you realize that having the right answer doesn't make you right? The process by which you get to the answer is often more important than the answer itself. and earlier in this post I describe the inverse square law to a T...without using or knowing the equation of inversed squares... That's cool, I guess. I just don't know why you're making it a matter of pride that you don't understand that math. Why anyone would be proud of their ignorance is beyond me. Are you just trying to give us the impression that you have overwhelming levels of raw intelligence? I myself have not been convinced that there is any experimental type proof of black holes being formed by supernova...I will surely go rad what you posted Please do. I was only concerned that there IS a radius, at which point, a certain mass can take on BH properties...its the way I think...you can tell, im much less concened about all those vectors involved in figuring things out...I go right for the tensor...and it has proved to work for my understandings...this post is the first discussion ive ever had with anyone who had actually studied GR and has math info...But i have listened to 1000s of hours of youtube lectures over 10 years...so the math as you know it has been well described to me...the effects and how it all works together...just not how it works as math...and I know this means I will never be able to make a true model of my own...But I can hold a discussion about GR, cant i? I think im doing OK To be honest, no, you're not really doing OK. Your posts are riddled with misconceptions and strange leaps of logic, all of which are quite tedious to correct. That's why I suggested picking up a textbook -- to avoid what's happening right now. If schwartzchild is right, or there is ANY radius, that a certain mass, when reduced to it, will create a black hole...then its very easy to say that the mass of my finger has a radius, at which point, when compressed down to that radius will make a black hole...thats straight up easy logic for beginners...will it go through the effecst of gravity? yes...fusion...all of it... Okay. If you read the bit about the pitcher and such, i may not need to answer this... I don't understand how you're getting from "some of the BH's energy is stored in its angular momentum" to "therefore its event horizon is smaller." The two seem utterly disconnected. If energy exists, can it exist without a vector? I dont think so...look to the definition of vectors...every energy has a directional component called a vector This is absolutely 100% false. Energy is not a vector. Energy is a scalar quantity. It has magnitude and no direction. This is why it's important not to use terminology you do not understand. Why does spin create the need for the radius to be shrunk in order to create a BH? I don't know that there's an intuitive explanation. It comes from the Kerr solution to the Einstein Field Equations, which describes the geometry of spacetime around a black hole with angular momentum. I don't think it's possible to reach such a conclusion based solely on energy considerations. Cuz the spin takes energy away from gravity...that radius is really a point at which you have given mass more energy, to effect gravity more and more until you get a black hole...and it all does come with a "direction" or vectoral component...Its about the collective "angles" of the vectors...they can create spin, or gravity, not both at the same time... The energy of the gravitational field is not well-defined in general relativity, so this argument truly makes no sense. You should note that when you shrink the volume of any mass, its takes energy...the common term is called compressive energy...thats what it apparently takes to shrink any volume...In our example, we have been trying to shrink the volume of a mass without adding pressure.... Gravity is an attractive force. It takes more energy to hold two objects apart than to bring them together. How does nature pull this off? It adds more mass...how? fusion...turning light little matter into heavy friggin matter in the same relative volume... I don't know what you mean by this. I have a posting called "math as a waveform science"...it implies that math was never meant to count digits or to account for them...it implies that math digitizes waveforms in order to understand them...but is that the only way to interpret the knowledge of waveforms? Waveforms complete math as they combine and interact...no digitizing needed in that process Are you talking about Fourier analysis? I fail to see how that's relevant to the conversation. Edited January 10, 2015 by elfmotat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Sir...you also have misunderstandings and have posted false conclusions...Im not interested in hearing how I know things you dont know because I am wrong though...Who's pride is being effected here? Im done -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Sir...you also have misunderstandings and have posted false conclusions... Im not interested in hearing how I know things you dont know because I am wrong though...Who's pride is being effected here? Im done That's not very fair. I put my time and effort into giving you informative responses, and I'd like to think I've been very patient. I can't help if you aren't willing to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 You ran me out of the conversation, not with science, but with your own obtusity...i believe thats what you were going for...nice angle I can help you if youre willing to learn...your pride has put you in a position of dominance only in your mind As i suspected, some supernova do indeed create black holes from that ocurrence...it is a step in becoming a black hole...I did suspect that, but there have been plenty of times where others knew something just as much as I did and still asked for proof...which took me much more time to give them than linking a wikipedia page, which i have never done... Being able to express these concepts in my own words seems to be a strength of mine..and explanation does infer understanding...you dont like the forms of my explanations...and we are in "Speculations" precisely because I do not have math to prove it... kinetic energy does not require a vector...good info...i need to see if kinetic energy can effect the curve of space-time...anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) You ran me out of the conversation, not with science, but with your own obtusity...i believe thats what you were going for...nice angle elfmotat has presented factual information and has attempted explanations at a level suitable for you (which is pretty tough). You are now behaving like a total dick. I don't know why. I can help you if youre willing to learn... There is nothing at all that you can teach elfmotat or 90% of the members of the forum. That is not "pride", it is just a judgement based on the level of knowledge you have displayed. As i suspected, some supernova do indeed create black holes from that ocurrence...it is a step in becoming a black hole...I did suspect that, You suspected it but you repeatedly denied it. Got it. Being able to express these concepts in my own words seems to be a strength of mine.. You might think that. But attempting to extract some sliver of meaning from your incoherent rambling full of misused jargon is hard work. A number of people have made the effort, in order to try and help you learn but you simply turn on them with arrogance and insults. Edited January 10, 2015 by Strange 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Instead of learning the lesson you wanted me to learn, I learned there is more than one way to skin a cat... elfmotat has presented factual information and has attempted explanations at a level suitable for you (which is pretty tough). You are now behaving like a total dick. I don't know why. There is nothing at all that you can teach elfmotat or 90% of the members of the forum. That is not "pride", it is just a judgement based on the level of knowledge you have displayed. You suspected it but you repeatedly denied it. Got it. You might think that. But attempting to extract some sliver of meaning from your incoherent rambling full of misused jargon is hard work. A number of people have made the effort, in order to try and help you learn but you simply turn on them with arrogance and insults. Fellas, if we can start calling each other names, can I go ahead and join in now? Then we can have everyone calling each other dicks...coooooool I only denied it till you gave me proof...which is what you do to me in every post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now