Page 3 of 8

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:26 am
by Earthshine
joe wrote:
Earthshine wrote:I'm not saying it isn't due to mass, I'm just saying the black hole itself doesn't have the mass, the star causing it does.
Oh, that's splitting hairs, surely? Don't we all take for granted, at least at this level, that a black hole refers to the singularity, the space surrounding it, the event horizon and all the other stuff? I can only remember reading books that say black holes have mass. Yes, they go on to say where the mass resides but only when relevant do they differentiate between black hole and singularity.
Yep, you're right. The only reason I brought it up is that the actual black hole could be much bigger than the actual star with the mass and not be anything solid, until you reach the star that is imploding. All I am saying is that some of the volume of the black hole can still be empty space as it is just a region, with a singularity in the centre, where the mass is.

I'm also not very good at trying to explain myself.

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:43 am
by joe
Cliff wrote:In my opinion it should be up to anyone producing a pet theory to demonstrate the theory has real merit.
I agree.
However, having said that I also think it is acceptable for someone to suggest that one or other posted pet theory is rubbish.
I agree to a certain extent but it would be beneficial to all to explain why it's rubbish otherwise there is no difference between someone's rubbish theory and someone saying a good theory is rubbish without any explanation.

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:09 pm
by Quasar
joe wrote:
Cliff wrote:In my opinion it should be up to anyone producing a pet theory to demonstrate the theory has real merit.
I agree.
However, having said that I also think it is acceptable for someone to suggest that one or other posted pet theory is rubbish.
I agree to a certain extent but it would be beneficial to all to explain why it's rubbish otherwise there is no difference between someone's rubbish theory and someone saying a good theory is rubbish without any explanation.
Agreed.


Cliff, thanks for your input. When Newton walked into the Royal institute with his theories, some members of the clergy wanted to have him hanged.
When Darwin came up with the Origin of Species the same thing happened.
Some of Einsteins theories were rejected and he needed a second chance at them early in his career.
Science and Physics are very adaptable, but the truth seems to fit very nicely most of the time. Ruud has an idea, which I thought and still think has some merit - period. I'm not saying he's a genius or the next Einstein just that he has an idea. Maybe it is correct, maybe it isn't but for you to say it's rubbish without fully reading it or even thinking about how it would fit into the grand scheme of things is a little harsh in my opinion.
Shall we have Ruud hung then Cliff :shock:

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:02 pm
by big_kev
rudolfhendriques wrote:Okay...

The basic idea I have is that the speed of light is not a velocity at all. I think that the lightspeed is the absolute minumum speed.

You can see that as the absolute point zero of space and time.

One argument for this is that the lightspeed does not have an acceleration.

If we measure the lightspeed, it has instantly the velocity of 300.000km/sec.

That's allready kind of weird, where does the light gets his speed from?
Looking at this first point I believe there is some validity here.

Can one measure the speed of a photon ?

Speed is defined as the distance covered between two points divided by the time taken between those two points.

As far as I am aware....let me know if i am wrong on this...you cannot measure a photon at two different points.
If you detect a photon at a certain point it "ceases to exist" at any of the other points.

Also consider that if you do measure/detect a photon at a certain point then you are never going to go fast enough to catch it at its next point. !

My thoughts on this are that time and a photon are interlinked in such a way that one is a function of the other....?

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:03 pm
by Cliff
Dear Quasar and Joe
I would not go as far as suggesting that Ruud should be hung (although that idea which seems to be your own suggestion not mine might be a better idea than Ruud's theory - SORRY ONLY JOKING ).
I am totally against the death sentence by the way even for murder, so I would not want anyone whose scientific theories I disagree with to be exterminated.
The problem that I have is that for various reasons I now have great confidence in both Newton (whose theories I have a level of understanding that satisfies me) and Einstein (even though I do not understand his theories to a level I would like - but Einstein's theories in general seem to be helpful in explaining many things.
However, from the little I have read of Ruud's theories\ideas they seem to turn some existing accepted ideas\theories on their head (which I have no objection to whatsoever because I like to try doing that myself occasionally) but unfortunately I am not convinced that Rudd's ideas get us anywhere, other than complicating matters un-necessarily.
If Ruud's theories cannot be proved to have any merit with regards showing advancement over current accepted theories, then as far as I am concerned why bother with them.
Of course if someone is a purist philosopher let them study any theories\ideas as much as they like - but please do not expect me to bother myself studying them.
As far as I am concerned, let's say if any idea\theory has not gained momentum in let's say a year then exterminate,EXTERMINATE !
Best wishes from Cliff

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:35 am
by Quasar
Cliff wrote:Dear Quasar and Joe
I would not go as far as suggesting that Ruud should be hung (although that idea which seems to be your own suggestion not mine might be a better idea than Ruud's theory - SORRY ONLY JOKING ).
I am totally against the death sentence by the way even for murder, so I would not want anyone whose scientific theories I disagree with to be exterminated.
The problem that I have is that for various reasons I now have great confidence in both Newton (whose theories I have a level of understanding that satisfies me) and Einstein (even though I do not understand his theories to a level I would like - but Einstein's theories in general seem to be helpful in explaining many things.
However, from the little I have read of Ruud's theories\ideas they seem to turn some existing accepted ideas\theories on their head (which I have no objection to whatsoever because I like to try doing that myself occasionally) but unfortunately I am not convinced that Rudd's ideas get us anywhere, other than complicating matters un-necessarily.
If Ruud's theories cannot be proved to have any merit with regards showing advancement over current accepted theories, then as far as I am concerned why bother with them.
Of course if someone is a purist philosopher let them study any theories\ideas as much as they like - but please do not expect me to bother myself studying them.
As far as I am concerned, let's say if any idea\theory has not gained momentum in let's say a year then exterminate,EXTERMINATE !
Best wishes from Cliff
Hi Cliff
That is a fair enough comment. As we examine the Universe and events within it, we constantly compare those events with excepted theory and find the theory to be good. During Einsteins period they did not always have the technology to be able to test the theory out in practical terms but as time progresses and the devolopment of science increases we have had the ability to constantly prove Newton and Einstein correct as well as a host of other commendable physicists from the past.
I have pointed this out to Ruud and explained that a theory as well as just being words must at some point be provable in a practical sense or have an application where we can see the theory in 'action' so to speak.
I too would like to see this and I agree without it - the theory is dead in the water.

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:56 pm
by rudolfhendriques
Okay, to give the discussion a new input I will try to explane my idea by some animation I made.

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kff8EBJ3Qo


Maybe this will help to understand the difference between the 3th an 4th dimension.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:36 am
by brian livesey
People refer to time as if it exists, but I only experience motion. I look at my wrist-watch, but it doesn't tell me the "time". All that I witness is the hands of the watch going round.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:29 pm
by Davej
brian livesey wrote:People refer to time as if it exists, but I only experience motion. I look at my wrist-watch, but it doesn't tell me the "time". All that I witness is the hands of the watch going round.
Hi Brian,
My watch suddenly goes slower when I'm at work :wink:
ATB
Dave

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:07 pm
by joe
brian livesey wrote:I look at my wrist-watch, but it doesn't tell me the "time". All that I witness is the hands of the watch going round.
Aren't there any numbers on it?

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:19 pm
by RL Astro
brian livesey wrote:I look at my wrist-watch, but it doesn't tell me the "time". All that I witness is the hands of the watch going round.
Someones been fobbing you off Brian :lol:

I know what you're saying though. All we witness is the motion of the object designed by us to tell us what we call "time", which is influenced by the Earths rotation. It tells us nothing of what the Universe would consider "time". Am I correct in thinking that what you're saying is "time" isn't an actual thing, merely the movement of particles?

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:18 pm
by Cliff
Dear Brian and RLastro
We may be on different wavelengths about this time matter, but I think I look at it differently than you. As bits of matter (eg collections of atoms, we may exist for a very long time - billions of years perhaps. However, as living conscious beings we only last say roughly a century (I say hopefully!). So from an individuals point of view time is only really of relatively short term importance. Many other living creatures have very short lived lives so their concept of time is probably very different than ours.
Whatever, I am inclined to think that for living creatures the concept of time is very important. However, time is different for different creatures.
Of course it might be argued that in the greater scale of things eg the Universe, time is also important but the Universe itself is not a "living creature". However, I wonder if that holds true?. Presumably a star has no feelings towards other stars, or the galaxy in which it resides. So perhaps time only has any real value to living creature who experience "feelings". However, perhaps the issue gets a little more complicated because although living creatures have limited lifespans they do interact with fellow creatures who lived part of their lives before them and some who live on after them.
So for the sake of discussion I'll suggest that for a human being a period of time of say 150-ish years is real and important. The before and after, is almost just a sort of fiction.
Best wishes from Cliff

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:33 pm
by RL Astro
Hi Cliff
Time is all as we perceive it. You say humans live for roughly 100 years. A year is how long it takes us to orbit the sun. So for us that's 100 years, but if we lived on Pluto with a period of 248 Earth years and had the same lifespan, we wouldn't even reach our first birthday. For some extrasolar planets with periods of mere hours, we'd live to hundreds of thousands of years.
What I'm saying is that what we call "time" is merely motion relative to us.

Ross

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:24 am
by brian livesey
"Time" to me seems to be nothing more than motion chopped into "bits" for our convenience.
Has anyone ever "seen" or "felt" time?

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:37 am
by joe
brian livesey wrote:"Time" to me seems to be nothing more than motion chopped into "bits" for our convenience.
Yes, of course, that much is obvious, it's "clock time", a human invention - just like the number 5. Time, or whatever name you want to give it, is a property of the universe that is linked to space. It appears that we cannot experience everything simultaneously because light speed isn't infinite. The amount of space in between where we are and where we are looking determines when (and sometimes how) we experience something. Are you saying that does not exist?
Has anyone ever "seen" or "felt" time?
Based on the above, yes, if you allow me to stretch "feel" to "experience". :wink: