Gravity, Magnetism and the Bending of Space-time

Excuse me?

The event horizon is a result of gravitic collapse. energy cannot be compressed.
If science fantasy is the goal you sound good.
like star wars

I love star wars and star trek.. but the is little factual science there

The structure of space a real thing. It is bent by mass. Time on the other hand seems to be bent by velocity
[time dilation]
Reality is truly a wonderfull thing.I ask a question.
One few think of.
Who made the rules. The Laws.
The inverse square law
Planks constant
Entropics
Inertia

The thing is.. that none can answer is . Take a binary star system. whee does the energy come from to keep 2 stars orbiting eachother.?
gravity.
the mass of the stars makes them 'weightless' if in proper motion. They bend space to allow themselves to be so.
I can conceptualize the 3d pinching of gravity and the map of our local star area out to barnhards

Finding the TRUTH of what is and how it works is a religion.
Faith. is not about god. faith is saying . the rules work because they were written so.

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrav2jkuClM

 

tehuti

If you need You tube you are not in the league
It means you cannot conceptualize space and time

 

If i need youtube? Wtf? Lmao! Hey bless ur lil heart much love to u...wow..

 

Did u watch it

 

you said energy cannot be compressed? would you like a debate on this issue?

 

All of you are talking pseudoscience or at least are grossly misinformed about physics. If I have the energy later I will point out both of your mistakes.

 

hmmm....oh please do tell

 

I just really read what you posted before, and hey man I really don't think that I wana have this conversation here anymore...good luck to you, but I'm good...

 

Run away! Run Away!

 

the message seems to appear with a velocity to it. Any acceleration would be about inarticulate breakdown; people, remember the computer breakdown for maintenance.

 

Not if you are going to talk about blue and red shift.

Blue shift is not compression. It is subjective observation . The squirrely part of relativity. The enrrgy 'seems ' compressed but thats just subjective process. Energy and light CANNOT travel less than 300Kms per sec.. ever.
If on the other hand you can show energy can be compressed . That interia can be modified. That entropy is plastic.. go for it
Jo

 

the fact that you answered th youtube Q twice. Shows it really pushed a button

 

Can qualitative measurements exist beyond any form of proportionate computability. Eh, there was some problem of double contact at any button pushing by the electronic circuit of inconclusive recognition... daa.ah, something with a diode.

YES!! Let's talk diodes.:devil:

 

tyrue if both replies were same . but 2 pushes with 2 different replies..???

 

Haha. I don't want to win any arguments simply by "argument by intimidation." Yes, I am in graduate school for mathematics and have a degree in mathematics and physics, as well as having written original work (some of which appears in my photos here...), but I would rather discuss stuff and have you come away learning some interesting things rather than scare people away!

I am a good teacher. My Calc students last semester liked me a lot. I was one of the few T.A.'s whose students actually came to office hours.

I'll look through what 'claims' were made by you and the other person and try and settle this.

 

Etkearne

You credentials are impresive.
In the epistemology of human thinking. You are maybe 100% more 'in the know' than others.
That is. your understanding covers 5 to 10% of what is.

Some have said im a good teacher., But not of math. History and philosophy/geopolitics
Math hurts my brain.
Thats the end in talking about ME
And i hope you will not talk about YOU

This forum is not about who is what. but what is what

Reality Is.. its our job to work out what that is. IS

 

Are you trying to 'scold' me or something? I honestly cannot tell because your tone of writing is rather cryptic. I am NOT trying to 'toot my horn' about my credentials.

HOWEVER, when I see people arguing over a matter of mathematical physics, I feel a responsibility to INFORM those people that they are not speaking the truth on the matter, because I would not want OTHER forum members to read the erroneous posts and assume them as being valid.

Thus, in order to establish my credibility for pointing out erroneous information, I find it necessary to simply lay out the fact that I have degrees in mathematics and physics and currently work as a graduate student in an active research university mainly in Applied Mathematics and Mathematical Physics.

I would NOT go into the forum about the German language (for example- I don't know if one such forum exists here) and claim to 'correct' peoples' German because I have a math and physics degree. THAT would be dumb. But, I am just trying to prevent erroneous information from spreading like wildfire amongst impressionable people who may NOT be trained in Mathematical Physics!

That is what I am saying. I hope that clears up your (seemingly) angry demeanor.

 

Address to Joachim:

I finally have the energy to counter each of the points you made (and your 'opponent' made) that are erroneous, or at best pseudoscientific. I hope everyone who has read the FIRST page of this thread reads THIS REPLY. I will try to make this as efficient and concise as possible.

1. "Those 'spooky' particles are just that. ghosts of the dreams of particle physicists. They have no say in the basic structure of Mater/Space aside from there position. Ie singularities.
'Our'
Universe is a 3d klein bottle .

one of millions"- Joachim

First of all, please define for me what you and the other people are calling "spooky particles." This is an umbrella term used by popular science literature (such as in magazines for the lay science enthusiast) and encompasses many, many different entities. So, first off, please let's have a consensus of WHAT a spooky particle is. I personally will refuse to use the term as it is not scientific and accurate.

Second, your basic claim that spacetime is 'real' is absolutely fine in my book. It is your derived conclusions that are bothersome. To say that a particle's position is a 'singularity' is misleading. Ususally, a singularity is defined as a point (in whatever metric space you define the universe to be) that is defined mathematically in such a way that it leads to infinite values or values of zero, such as a corner or cusp are not defined as having a first derivative in basic one-variable Calculus.

Even if one of these "spooky particles" happened to contain a mathematical singularity, it doesn't mean that we should stop looking at it. It more than likely means that the physics written to describe the situation is simply outdated and needs revision to account for such singular behavior. However, you are correct that they may not 'exist' in the sense that the 'spooky particle' is simply a poorly constructed analogy for what 'real' physical phenomena is occuring. Both cases are possible.

I don't know why you jumped from that to saying that our universe is one of millions of 3-D Klein Bottles. First off, Klein Bottles are NOT three dimensional. Klein bottles cannot be embedded or defined in three dimensional space. The 3D analogue of the Klein bottle (ie: the prototypical non-orientable surface) is the Mobius Strip. What would compel you to think that the universe has the topology of a non-orientable surface? Left and right are clearly defined in the manifold of which the Universe is defined as. It is a basic topological property. And, why would there be millions (I assume you mean infinite?) of them? In the Multiverse Scenerio, there is no reason that each Universe be the same topological homeomorphism of the other ones.

2.Thought is structure in system. It exists as such
circuitry is like a rock. useless until used.,
Though uses circuitry and is of that..a neuroelectric pattern A dynamic structure dependent on the system but free to ...
Make new ideas.
Art
Love
Music

And thus the rock The circuitry be it biological or other is a base. a machine as we define it. 'Metallic circuitry'
can be as 'alive' as any other mind,, can hope and feel.

If we must that idiot god for anything. it is thanks for the ability to wonder.

This statement is extremely poorly written for ascertaining any scientific value from it. It is NOT standard to use poetic devices in science! This entire statement is written like a poem, leaving an INFINITE amount of interpretations to what it is you are trying to convey. I will, however, ATTEMPT to guess what you are trying to say.

So I am assuming you are trying to define what consciousness "is", physically. Most neuroscientists, using ideas from modern physics, believe that consciousness is nothing more than the brain's way of relaying sensory input and past experience in a way that the organism can function properly; something evolved from billions of years. I THINK you are saying the correct thing in calling consciousness 'biological circuitry'. That is essentially correct, however, the brain doesn't work in binary, but in analog. Neuro-receptors can release any 'dialed' amount of a neurotransmitter to the next neuron, it need not be an 'on-off' mechanism. You are correct in saying that it is not theoretically impossible for 'machine brains' to be able to have consciousness. However, at this point, no human creation has achieved or even gotten NEAR achieving such an event. Doing so would be the biggest news in history. Binary circuit-boards are good at rote, algorithmic, output, but compared to the multi-functional receptor-neurotransmitter system of the brain, it is like comparing apples and oranges. The brain is not geared to be simply an algorithmic device. Evolution created a brain that HAS TO be able to use abstraction.

3.Excuse me?

The event horizon is a result of gravitic collapse. energy cannot be compressed.
If science fantasy is the goal you sound good.
like star wars

I love star wars and star trek.. but the is little factual science there

The structure of space a real thing. It is bent by mass. Time on the other hand seems to be bent by velocity
[time dilation]
Reality is truly a wonderfull thing.I ask a question.
One few think of.
Who made the rules. The Laws.
The inverse square law
Planks constant
Entropics
Inertia

The thing is.. that none can answer is . Take a binary star system. whee does the energy come from to keep 2 stars orbiting eachother.?
gravity.
the mass of the stars makes them 'weightless' if in proper motion. They bend space to allow themselves to be so.
I can conceptualize the 3d pinching of gravity and the map of our local star area out to barnhards

Finding the TRUTH of what is and how it works is a religion.
Faith. is not about god. faith is saying . the rules work because they were written so.
What are you trying to say when you say 'energy cannot be compressed."? There are about 10 basic forms of energy and making a sweeping ambiguous statement like this is just plain confusing to people. Just look at thermodynamics. Heat energy increases when matter is compressed, giving rise into increased pressure, thus increased intermolecular interaction, therefore increasing heat energy 'concentration per unit volume.' However, NOBODY talks like this, because energy and matter are interchangeable and compression is something that requires energy in the first place. In the end, energy (and thus MATTER) are conserved. I would reply further, but the statement is so ambiguous I am not sure what you really mean.

Saying space is bent by mass and time is bent by velocity is an erroneous statement. Space and time are related JUST LIKE energy and mass. They are part of the SAME nature. The manifold that we call "The Universe" is a manifold that has a spatial and temporal element, BUT it is still ONE 'thing' and doesn't differentiate between time and space like they exist independent of each other. See my basic summary of Spacetime in my photo album here. The topic comes up SO frequently at this forum that I wrote a special HipForums essay on the topic. Please read it and read it carefully.

Asking 'who made the rules' is not a scientific question. All of those rules could have arisen without ANY input from some sort of external entity. Picture a big slot machine, spinning out an infinite amount of crap. Most of the 'output' is junk (picture 'other' universes with those constants defined in a way that prohibits life formation), but some are 'winners.' We are simply here, ASKING that question, BECAUSE we could only ask those questions FROM a universe with advantageous values for those constants. It is called the Anthropic Principle and brings in no need for gods or superstitions.


Please read this carefully before replying in a knee-jerk fashion.

 

Oh, so now your going to confuse the whole issue with facts and testable hypothesis?
What are you thinking?