Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

It might be if the ground pushed back more than you push on it. At it is, it pushes back with exactly the same force.

 

Well, I can feel the pressure I'm putting ot the ground but I can't feel the pressure the ground is putting to my hands. And since science say that both pressures equalize themselves, I shouldn't be feeling anything. So I'll stick to the idea that Earth doesn't push back, if you don't mind.

 

 

 

Yep. That seems like a reasonable definition. (Clearly, totally different from yours.)

 

Once again you "decree" whitout explaining what difference it has from mine. I'll admit that you seem to know quite a bit.

 

 

 

Yes. Mass is rest mass and does not change.

And when you give it acceleration at "light speed square"; does it still is "rest mass"?

 

 

 

M is the rest mass; but what is c²applied to it to equal E?

It is a conversion factor required because we use random wacky units like seconds, kilograms and metres.

 

Nice! But where are those units in the E of the equation E = Mc² ? And why write c²,if you don't need it to equal M with E? You're right, something is wacky here.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

You really need to study action/reaction in Newtons laws. If this law didn't exist. You push on the ground if there was no counter push you would sink. Much like quicksand.

Ever fire a gun? What do you think recoil is?

How do you think you can walk. You push with your feet backwards the ground pushes back. If it didn't you wouldn't gain forward momentum.

[Strange]

Well, I can feel the pressure I'm putting ot the ground but I can't feel the pressure the ground is putting to my hands.

 

Maybe you need to see a doctor about that lack of sensation in your extremities.

 

Once again you "decree" whitout explaining what difference it has from mine. I'll admit that you seem to know quite a bit.

 

 

It is hardly a decree; just pointing out that the definitions are different. Let's compare them:

 

YOU: "inertia is being at rest or in uniform motion" (In other words, inertia is the state of motion or speed)

 

DICTIONARY: "The tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force; the resistance of a body to changes in momentum."

(In other words, the resistance to a change in state of motion)

 

And when you give it acceleration at "light speed square"; does it still is "rest mass"?

 

What does 'acceleration at "light speed square"' mean? c² is not an acceleration or even a velocity.

 

Nice! But where a those units in the E of the equation E = Mc² ? And why write c²,if you don't need it to equal M with E? You're right, something is wacky here.

 

Energy is kg x m² / s².

 

Perhaps you need to study basic dimensional analysis: http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE1400/Section5/dimensional_analysis.htm

 

What is wacky is your apparent lack of basic maths/physics knowledge.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Strange; your link doesn't work. Ok Got it!

 

 

 

 

Ever fire a gun? What do you think recoil is?

 

Certainly not because I'm pushing the gun.

 

 

 

How do you think you can walk.

 

Because I push on solid ground. I can't walk on air even if you think it's pushing back equaly to my pushing on it.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Oh man you really have to sit down and look at how vectors work with force. This is basic physics stuff.

 

when you jump you exert a downward force. The ground exerts an equal and opposite reaction. If it didn't you wouldn't go up.

 

I suggest you study this basic physics textbook.

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html

 

In particular chapter 9

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you Mordred. I'll get to it right after this message.

 

 

 

What I understand up untill now is that there are facts, and there are explanations. Explanations are not facts. For example; special relativity is an explanation of one fact which is: “light speed” is an invariant. General relativity is an explanation of another fact which is: gravitation is only a consequence of a deformation in the geometry of space-time.

 

So if we stick to facts while reasoning, we will find other facts; but if we stick strictly to explanations, we will find a multitude of other explanations that don’t relate to facts but relate to "explanations"; and then we leave the “factual” universe behind, to enter an “imagined” universe.

Geez thank you Mordred, there's everything in that link.

[Mordred]

Your welcome that's only volume one of three books available on that website.

 

There is very little in science we call fact. TBH I can't think of a single example. Everything in science is modelled or explained as to the best of our knowledge or model to measurements and observation. This isn't necessarily fact. If for some unpredicted evidence comes along our knowledge and understanding must conform.

[Strange]

What I understand up untill now is that there are facts, and there are explanations.

 

If this was in the philosophy forum, we discuss the differences between facts, observations, measurements, evidence, axioms and postulates.

 

But, for the moment, lets assume there are facts: things we measure or are self-evidently true.

 

Explanations are not facts. For example; special relativity is an explanation of one fact which is: “light speed” is an invariant.

 

Not quite. The invariant speed of light is a fact (postulate). Special relativity is simply a straightforward (and inevitable) consequence of that. It doesn't explain why the speed of light is invariant. Nothing does. It is just the way the universe is.

 

General relativity is an explanation of another fact which is: gravitation is only a consequence of a deformation in the geometry of space-time.

 

The fact that gravity is caused by the geometry of space-time is a result from general relativity; not a fact that we would have known otherwise.

 

So if we stick to facts while reasoning, we will find other facts; but if we stick strictly to explanations, we will find a multitude of other explanations that don’t relate to facts but relate to "explanations"; and then we leave the “factual” universe behind, to enter an “imagined” universe.

 

Maybe you need to clarify what you mean by "fact" and "explanation".

 

In science, I would assume that "fact" refers to observations and measurements (evidence) and "explanation" means a model based on those observations (i.e. a theory).

 

Do you mean something else by those words?

[Andre Lefebvre]

A "Fact" is what is; and my interpretation of "what is" is an explanation.

 

The "fact has more possibility to be true even if my explanation is wrong.

 

On the other hand, if my explanation is right; the fact is also right.

[Strange]

A "Fact" is what is; and my interpretation of "what is" is an explanation.

 

The "fact has more possibility to be true even if my explanation is wrong.

 

On the other hand, if my explanation is right; the fact is also right.

 

But how can we ever discover facts (or even explanations)? How do we ever find out "what is"? How do we find out if a fact or an explanation is right or wrong?

 

The best we can do is look at the evidence and build tentative models to explain the evidence. (This is popularly known as "doing science".)

 

Unless you have some sort of hotline to divine truth?

[Mordred]

A "Fact" is what is; and my interpretation of "what is" is an explanation.

 

The "fact has more possibility to be true even if my explanation is wrong.

 

On the other hand, if my explanation is right; the fact is also right.

No matter how accurate any theory or model is. Science never states any theory or model as 100% accurate. Every model or theory has a degree of accuracy.

 

Granted the closer that model or theory conforms to repeatable experiments and observation, the more likely one can consider it as being a fact. With the caveat above.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

A "Fact" is what is; and my interpretation of "what is" is an explanation.

You have hit on an important 'problem' with physics. Generally all observations need to be viewed with a theory in mind in order to interpret the observations. It is quite possible that two scientists can view the same event but see vastly different phenomena. This is where the data analysis and so on comes in to see if one theory matches the observations better than another. But anyway, the point is that quite generally we cannot separate 'experiment' and 'theory' so cleanly. Therefore 'fact' and 'interpretation' are also no cleanly separated.

[Andre Lefebvre]

Let's take an example.

 

The photo delivered by Planck satellite is what I call a"fact". IT's not the result of an interpretation, an opinion or a theory. It's a "picture" of something that happenned when the universe was 380,000 years old.

 

Another "fact" is the release of a quantum of energy at 125/6 GeV at the LHC.

 

Those are "facts" whatever the "interpretation" we are going to give them. We cannot change those "facts", but we can give them many interpretations of which, only one will be correct.

[ajb]

The photo delivered by Planck satellite is what I call a"fact". IT's not the result of an interpretation, an opinion or a theory. It's a "picture" of something that happenned when the universe was 380,000 years old.

But without some theory you have no idea what you are looking at. How do you know this picture has anything to do with the Universe at 380,000 years old?

 

 

Another "fact" is the release of a quantum of energy at 125/6 GeV at the LHC.

It takes some theory to have an idea what 125 GeV even means!

 

 

Those are "facts" whatever the "interpretation" we are going to give them. We cannot change those "facts", but we can give them many interpretations of which, only one will be correct.

You can have more than one theory that describe the phenomena equally as well. You may then need other criteria to decide which is 'better'.

[Mordred]

The image on the CMB isn't anything close to a picture say from a camera.

 

Its a complilation of multiple sensor readings, each sampling is subjected to numerous calibrations to filter out background interferance from our local Milky way radiation and movement (redshift effects)

 

If you change any of the calibration settings you change the image. I wouldn't call this fact. I would classify it as a data interpretation.

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

But without some theory you have no idea what you are looking at. How do you know this picture has anything to do with the Universe at 380,000 years old?

The Planck satellite was made to take that picture.

 

But let's take another example where a "fact" was perceive and we didn't know what it was.

 

In 1964 Penzias and Wilson where working whit an antenna of Bell telephone company. They perceived something that wasn't suppose to be there. It came out as being Cosmic Microwave Background. This was a "fact" observed whitout any theory producing it. The theory tried to explain it afterward.

 

"Facts" are things you cannot change and you try to understand.

 

When Galileo made is experiment of pouring a cup of tea at the bottom of a boat where he couldn't see outside he said: "I'm pouring my tea just like if the movement of the boat doesn't exist". That didn't mean that the movement of the boat didn't exist; he well knew that it did. It really meant that a movement occurring inside a volume which is in motion, takes place as if the motion of the containing volume didn't exist.

 

We can apply that "fact" to gravity. It would then say that "Gravity (space-time deformation) inside a bigger volume that has its own gravity (space-time deformation), acts as if the outside gravity doesn't exist. And then we cannot say that a star orbiting around the center of a galaxy adds to the mass (energy) of that galaxy.

 

 

The image on the CMB isn't anything close to a picture say from a camera.

 

Its a complilation of multiple sensor readings,

 

And what is a camera to you?

 

 

 

If you change any of the calibration settings you change the image. I wouldn't call this fact. I would classify it as a data interpretation.

 

Well let's say that calculator interpretations are not subject to choose a theory that will "fit" to the picture they come out with. That kind of interpretation I can call a "fact". Further more "changing the image" by changing the calibration settings, won't be creating an image "out of the blues". It's going to give you an additional information of the picture. Data interpretations are not interpretations; they are the same fact seen through different calibrations. Whatever you filter from the background is also informations on "fact".

 

The interpretation I'm talking about is what "explanation" we will give to those different "facts".

Edited July 16, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[ajb]

In 1964 Penzias and Wilson where working whit an antenna of Bell telephone company. There perceive something that wasn't suppose to be there. It came aout as being Cosmic Microwave Background. This was a "fact" observed whitout any theory producing it. The theory tried to explain it afterward.

How did they know 'it was not supposed to be there'?.

 

These guys must have been quite competent with the theory of microwave antenna and so on... at lest enough to make some sense of what they were detecting.

 

Now, it is also a fact that the CMBR was predicted a little earlier than the Penzias and Wilson's detection. They happened to detect it without looking for it and of course had no idea at first what they were detecting.

 

"Facts" are things you cannot change and you try to understand.

I think I understand what you mean, but I think that in general some theory is needed to make any sense of observations and that as our understanding grows our perceptions change.

 

 

We can apply that "fact" to gravity. It would then say that "Gravity (space-time deformation) inside a bigger volume that has its own gravity (space-time deformation), acts as if the outside gravity doesn't exist. And then we cannot say that a star orbiting around the center of a galaxy adds to the mass (energy) of that galaxy.

Are you hinting at something like the shell theorem?

[Mordred]

The Planck satellite was made to take that picture.

 

But let's take another example where a "fact" was perceive and we didn't know what it was.

 

In 1964 Penzias and Wilson where working whit an antenna of Bell telephone company. They perceived something that wasn't suppose to be there. It came out as being Cosmic Microwave Background. This was a "fact" observed whitout any theory producing it. The theory tried to explain it afterward.

 

"Facts" are things you cannot change and you try to understand.

 

When Galileo made is experiment of pouring a cup of tea at the bottom of a boat where he couldn't see outside he said: "I'm pouring my tea just like if the movement of the boat doesn't exist". That didn't mean that the movement of the boat didn't exist; he well knew that it did. It really meant that a movement occurring inside a volume which is in motion, takes place as if the motion of the containing volume didn't exist.

 

We can apply that "fact" to gravity. It would then say that "Gravity (space-time deformation) inside a bigger volume that has its own gravity (space-time deformation), acts as if the outside gravity doesn't exist. And then we cannot say that a star orbiting around the center of a galaxy adds to the mass (energy) of that galaxy.

 

 

And what is a camera to you?

 

 

Well let's say that calculator interpretations are not subject to choose a theory that will "fit" to the picture they come out with. That kind of interpretation I can call a "fact". Further more "changing the image" by changing the calibration settings, won't be creating an image "out of the blues". It's going to give you an additional information of the picture. Data interpretations are not interpretations; they are the same fact seen through different calibrations. Whatever you filter from the background is also informations on "fact".

 

The interpretation I'm talking about is what "explanation" we will give to those different "facts".

Your still not understanding....

 

Take thousands of wavelength readings filter out noise etc. Assign a pixel location for each wavelength data set. The process takes several years. You also have to compile multiple sensors into one dataset for each pixel.

 

Does that help explain how it's an interpretation of the data?

Think of the difference between a radio telescope and one using lenses.

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

How did they know 'it was not supposed to be there'?.

 

These guys must have been quite competent with the theory of microwave antenna and so on... at lest enough to make some sense of what they were detecting.

 

They didn't. They though it was interference and cleaned everything inside the receptor trying to get rid of it. It's only when they couldn't get rid of it that they began to think there was something really there (That there was a"fact" manifesting itself).

 

 

 

as our understanding grows our perceptions change.

 

But the facts don't. They stay the same.

 

 

 

Are you hinting at something like the shell theorem?

 

What is the shell theorem?

 

Oh. Sorry. I'm only saying that as long as a center of gravity doesn't join (unify with) another center of gravity to become one, it doesn't add mass to the greater deformation containing it. But they do influence one another by producing "tidal effect"; so one doesn't see the other like "non-existing". Just like if Galileo would have poured his tea inside a train instead of a boat. He would have seen the movement by the window of the train and still wouldn't have spill is tea.

 

 

Take thousands of wavelength readings filter out noise etc

That noise is a "fact". The interpretation would be if you'd say it sounds like Bach or Chopin.

 

 

 

Assign a pixel location for each wavelength data set. The process takes several years. You also have to compile multiple sensors into one dataset for each pixel.

 

Those are adjustments. Like taking a banana out of my ear, because I don't ear so good with it.

 

 

 

Does that help explain how it's an interpretation of the data?

 

No it doesn't, to me at least. Sorry.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[ajb]

What is the shell theorem?

A quick google will give you more information, but basically it says that in the context of Newtonian gravity:

 

i) spherically symmetric bodies can be thought of as point masses as far as external bodies are concerned.

ii) there is no net gravitational force on a single object inside a spherically symmetric shell.

[Mordred]

Here

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1507.02704

 

look at page 4 take thousands of the sensor readings on the images on the right hand side page 4 power spectrum etc. Then read the full document on all the calibration procedures and formulas involved in those calibrations. Then form the images on the left hand side on page 4.

 

The axis of evil in the 2012 Planck dataset was due to improper calibration. Local noise ie gamma rays etc is indeed there, if you don't filter that noise out. You will not be able to take readings of an event at 380,000 years old.

 

You really should learn to understand a process before assuming the explanation is wrong. I've lost count how often you've jumped to conclusions without understanding the theory or model in this thread.

 

You keep jumping from mere description either on this forum or pop media style articles to conclusion.

That's why I supply references and articles to fill those gaps that lead to why a model or theory states what it does.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thanks Mordred I'll look at it right away.

Here is something from the link supplied by Mordred that could end by being a "fact":

We can read in the "conclusion":

 

 

 

Careful inspection of residuals with respect to the best-fit ΛCDM model has revealed a list of anomalies in the Planck CMB power spectra, of which the most significant is still the low-` temperature anomaly in the range 20 ≤ ` ≤ 30, already discussed at length in the 2013 release. In this 2015 release, with more data and with better calibration, foreground modelling, and sky masks, its significance has decreased from the 0.7 % to the 2.8 % level for the T T spectrum (Sect. 5.4). This probability is still small (although not very small), and the feature remains unexplained.

[Mordred]

Further data and calibration could change those results. The point being is its still too early pto be certain. You posted an example where one dataset doesn't precisely match the other. The next set may or may not lead to different results.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Right Mordred.

 

Nevertheless the data and calibration are applied to something that is a "fact". Otherwise you wouldn't even have a picture.

Regarding the "opposite force" that applies when I walk (pushing on a wall develops an equal opposite force by the wall) the answer just popped up in my mind.

 

You have to come back to where I explained what "weight" is previously.

 

The (what you call) "force" applied to my feet by the ground is not toward my feet; that "force" is oriented toward the center of gravity of the Earth. It's putting a pressure on the "particles" preceding it to that center of gravity just as I'm putting pressure on that ground for the same reason. What the ground does is oppose a resistance to my following the curvature of space-time that sends me toward the center of gravity. In regard of my own pressure, the ground is "passive". And that pressure I make on the ground is what we call my weight.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Not bad the term force is fine. Pressure is just force per unit volume.

 

What the ground does is oppose a resistance to my following the curvature of space-time.

Change this to oppose my free fall acceleration.(keeps the units straight) Weight is the measure of force on an object due to gravity.

 

W=mg

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mordred