|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2005 : 16:40:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In science we have the proper terms to describe the different phenomena and events, specially in physics. I don't know who made the review of Hawking writings but the correct scientific term might be gasify-gasified. By saying evaporate, Hawking is implying that black holes are made of liquid.
Well, you're good for a laugh atleast.
And if you insist on trying to make Hawking say that black holes are liquid.... then you will be laughed at by anyone and everyone.
Maybe you just enjoy verbal abuse and ridicule? Because you are certainly inviting it in droves with this nonsense.
If you are truly incapable of understanding that Hawking uses the word "evaporation" in context with "mass-to-Hawking radiation" and NOT "liquid-to-vapor", then you have some serious and fundamental problems with basic language comprehension.
I don't have any degrees in physics, and even I understood the concept he was trying to communicate.
Obviously you don't.
Or, in order for your nonsense about the "law of perception" to be validated, you require somebody to accept your miscomprehension of Hawking.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 16:40:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Regardless of how much assumed evidence is presented today (read the beautiful floors and ornaments of the building), that failure makes the theory of Relativity invalid.
A nice little story, but as an analogy it has a serious flaw.
There was never any flaw in the foundation. For your analogy to be valid, it would have been the building-inspector (Eddington) measuring the concrete foundation who couldn't read his instrument, then saying "Bah, the foundation is good" even if his numbers didn't say so. Waller would be another inspector catching the first inspector cheating. But that does not change the foundation.
For decades, several more inspectors have made the same measurements (with better and better instruments) and found the foundation to be solid, and according to specs.
Lawrules, in your presentation this far you have already made too many blunders. Your confessed lack of command of the English language, yet you insist you can teach English natives their own language, and scientific terminology. I don't buy your explanations and apologetics.
quote:
So far, nobody have enjoyed the assumed benefits of that theory, which in the past promised travel through time, also to stay younger by travelling outer space at fast speeds, and other similar floating dreams. This is to say, no one has occupied that building yet. Its construction still in progress.
R.Wreck have provided one example.
Another one is my friend using his GPS every time he venture out in the woods. It wouldn't be accurate without taking relativity into account.
(edited to fix grammar) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/07/2005 13:43:41 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 17:01:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Several other possibilities can be obtained to cause the dead of the cat or keeping the cat alive. As an example, we can also imply... <snip>
But this was not the point nor the purpose of Schrödinger's cat.
You are trying to mis-represent what Schrödinger originally intended with that thought-experiment. One of the points was that quantum mechanics was counter-intuitive, and Dave_W has already pointed out.
quote:
By an understanding of physical reality and in contradiction to a common belief, not everything in possible in our physical universe. Laws of physics rule over the physical universe and those laws impede several imaginations to become a physical reality. These limits ruled by the laws of physics apply both the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos.
This is so New-Age my BS-meter
blew a fuse. This is not science. Maybe philosophy, but I can't say for sure, since I'm not a philosopher. Definitely wishful thinking.
quote:
Theories made before the current space travelling by humans did not consider the negative effects caused by such a different environment, for this reason the consequences of those theories are found invalid.
The theories were shown to be flawed and was revised to include new data. It is the incremental revision of theories that is part of the strength of science.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 17:18:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Their return has proved that space travelling cause anything but returning younger or slowing the process of ageing. Drugs and other solutions may be necessary to keep the astronauts in good health in a longer travelling in outer space. A faster speed won't change those negative effects in the astronauts caused by the strong change of their environment. On the contrary, great concerns about the possible effects of cosmic rays and solar winds hitting the space ship and causing cancer and other diseases in astronauts are other risks which still present and cannot be ignored. Ignoirance about the effects of space traveling was the reason of why ideas as the Twin Paradox spread out and scientists used them as an example of time dilatation. Those ideas were accepted as possible by many because the lack of facts which were revealed in recent years to us. Einstein's ignorance about the negative effects of space traveling in humans can be considered as well as carrying his mathematical calculations to the limits of the absurd.
What is absurd is that you are seemingly trying to blame the Theory of Relativity, and relativistic effects for the poor physical condition of long term astronauts. (when it is the zero-gravity that is causing it)
And to suggest that Einstein's lack of consideration of these negative effects (effects that wasn't observed more than 50 years later, and of biological nature, not physical) have no bearing what so ever on relativity.
What kind of weed are you smoking, Lawrules?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 20:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules wrote:
quote:
Ignoirance about the effects of space traveling was the reason of why ideas as the Twin Paradox spread out and scientists used them as an example of time dilatation. Those ideas were accepted as possible by many because the lack of facts which were revealed in recent years to us. Einstein's ignorance about the negative effects of space traveling in humans can be considered as well as carrying his mathematical calculations to the limits of the absurd.
My goodness!! You really have no idea about what special relativity was saying.
Lets just take the human out of the equation and put a CLOCK on a space ship and send it into space. You can see the time dialation effect in that the clock will be behind the clock that was not accelerated. Guess what Lawrules - this has already been done with atomic clocks and the effect has be seen and measured.
Lawrules you didn't even discuss the real part of the paradox! The paradox is that as the space ship flys by earth the brother on the earth can see that the clock on the space ship is running in slow motion, but the brother on the space ship also sees the clock on earth running in slow motion!?! See, there is no fixed point everything is relative so the relative motion between the two brothers means that each on sees the other as running in slow motion and not aging. Do you have an answer as to how that could be possible considering that in the paradox they end up at different ages?? Einsein's theory does. Check it out.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 20:49:06 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules, your insistence that Hawking meant something other than what he said he meant (his description of a black hole "evaporating" includes plenty of context, so that only a fool or a literalist would be confused into thinking that he implies that black holes are liquids) invalidates your arguments. If you believe that all dictionary definitions are fixed once they are written, and never change, you're simply naive. However, words change. New ones appear, old ones go away, and some old ones get new definitions. Language evolves. If you'd like to argue the point further, I'd suggest you prepare to defend the position that language - especially scientific language - never changes.quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
That is what science claims. Science cannot accept the existence of a God without proof. Philosophy can accept the idea of the existence of God without the need of evidence, any other branch of knowledge can accept that idea but science.
Not all philosophies. You can be an atheist without practicing science. And many religious philosophies peacefully co-exist in people's minds with their scientific philosophies. This is more of your post-modern pap.quote:
Allow me to write an analogy, so you may understand better.
It's a poor analogy. A better one would be that Einstein drew up plans for a building, and then later Eddington calculated the materials to be used, and convinced the inspectors to issue a permit. Later, other people, using Einstein's same plans, calculated the correct amount of materials, and buildings have been built all over the place, and occupied.quote:
When you read the events of the validation of the theory of Relativity, its base foundation, the assumed distorsion of the imaginary space-time and the calculations of Einstein simply failed.
You ignore one of the primary tenets of science: repetition of results. One test (Eddington's) does not make a theory sink or swim. Einstein's theory has been validated many times. The first time means nothing in comparison.quote:
I know that your claims are that "other" evidence have been presented to prove the veracity of Relativity, as Waller tries to justify in his book as well, but...I'm skeptic.
No, you're not a skeptic. You refuse to look at evidence which disproves your hypothesis that Einstein's theory is a failure.quote:
The theories of science must start with a strong and factual foundation. Without one, those theories are not scientific.
In physics, that strong foundation is built with mathematics.quote:
You yourselves are skeptic of any other "new" theory if that theory can't pass the requirements of the scientific method. Well, the theory of Relativity did not pass the requirements in 1919.
But it has since then. Why do you ignore this other data? What makes the first test special, and the rest of the tests inconsequential?quote:
Regardless of how much assumed evidence is presented today (read the beautiful floors and ornaments of the building)...
Utter nonsense. The foundation (the mathematics) is unchanged and still valid today. Eddington's test did not "disprove" Einstein.quote:
So far, nobody have enjoyed the assumed benefits of that theory, which in the past promised travel through time, also to stay younger by traveling outer space at fast speeds, and other similar floating dreams. This is to say, no one has occupied that building yet. Its construction still in progress.
The realistic "promises" of the theory have been in use for years. Even Einstein knew that time travel and "staying young" (a sumpreme misunderstanding of relativity) were unattainable in reality.quote:
The idea of the earth as the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting around us was a conventional thought for several centuries until facts demonstrated the contrary.
As was Newton's physics (which included no universal speed limit, nor an explanation of the orbit of Mercury) until Einstein came along.quote:
With my sincere respects I can tell you that facts will demonstrate that the theories that imply time as a physical dimension are false.
What's your score? By my count, it's at least 40. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2005 : 21:14:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Their return has proved that space traveling cause anything but returning younger or slowing the process of aging.
At 5 mps, gamma is equal to 1.0000000007226268938046500273187, so each second for us would be 0.99999999927737310671753959995375 seconds to the Russian cosmonauts on Mir. If they stayed up for a year - 31,536,000 seconds to us - they would have aged only 31535999.977211238293444328824142 seconds. So, you can prove that these guys are not 0.02278876170655567117585848074922 seconds younger than the rest of us, you'll have a point.
Let me restate that: a whole year going 5 miles per second only "retards aging" relativistically by 2.3 hundredths of a second.
If you cannot prove it, but just insist that it can't be the case due to biological factors in low gravity, then you're not a skeptic.quote:
A faster speed won't change those negative effects in the astronauts caused by the strong change of their environment.
No, but a constant linear acceleration of 1g would. The ignorance displayed in this latest post of yours is astounding.
Hey, on a lark, I once did these calculations for NASCAR races. Did you know that at 200 mph, a stock car is 64 billionths of an inch shorter than one at rest? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 00:04:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the case of "evaporate", I should ask for the specific explanation of the definition below presented as "evidence" by woolytoad:
3. To deposit (a metal) on a substrate by vacuum sublimation.
Please apply that defintion to the the evaporation of the black hole.
You've totally missed the point.
Sublimation is process of changing a solid into a gas without becoming a liquid first. You should know this. It is valid to describe this as evaporation. The use of the word evaporate here does not apply to black holes in any way. That's the point. There are many ways to use a particular word. Simply because black holes can be described to evaporate, it doesn't make them liquids. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 08:49:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
With all the humble respect to your excellent presentation of the different definitions of the word evaporation, the results from the Princeton University is
Evaporate
v 1: lose or cause to lose liquid by vaporization leaving a more concentrated residue; "evaporate milk" [syn: vaporize, vaporise] 2: cause to change into a vapor; "The chemist evaporated the water" [syn: vaporise] 3: change into a vapor; "The water evaporated in front of our eyes" [syn: vaporise]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
I guess that if you look for the word "degenerate" in the web, you will find different kinds of definitions, but if you look in a dictionary of biology, the definitions are very different, then, such scientific terms "must be translated" in layman's language if a lecture is made to the public in general.
In the case of "evaporate", I should ask for the specific explanation of the definition below presented as "evidence" by woolytoad:
3. To deposit (a metal) on a substrate by vacuum sublimation.
Please apply that defintion to the the evaporation of the black hole.
I'm skeptic, and such definition doesn't fit at all in what Hawking tried to express, it appears that in his imagination, the imaginary black hole was hot and sending vapors to outer space...
As the history of black holes was presented above, everything about such imaginary phenomena started with that, an imagination based in abstract mathematics.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hawking+evaporation
Black hole evaporation
When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore of its mass (recall that mass and energy are related by the Einstein's famous equation E = mc²).
The whole term needs to be evaluated, not just the single term. English is a lot more complex than you suppose.
Also, You are missing a definition.
"To disappear; vanish:" -- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 17:29:49 [Permalink]
|
I must admit that your intentions are very honest when you strongly support the word evaporate as appropiate to describe radiation escaping from the imaginary blak hole.
I wonder why the theory of Quantum did not use that word instead of explaining properly the process of the assumed radiation coming out from the imaginary black hole.
My sincere apology, but still you cannot justify the use of that word in your replies. I do not want to persist in this matter, but your replies like "sublimation" is to compare black holes with snow, the interpretation found in the dictionaries as "to disappear, vanish" which is a literary figure does not apply either to the implied process given to the imaginary black hole.
I guess that the best solution is that one of you guys contact, maybe Dr. Mabuse can directly communicate with Hawking and ask him "What kind of weed are you smoking Mr. Hawking, in order to spread out that black holes evaporate?"
Einstein faced up when he was asked about the Twin Paradox, I guess that Hawking must do the same, because, according to all your replies, no one of those has justified the use of the word evaporate as the proper scientific term to describe such radiation coming out from the imaginary black hole.
Please remember that we are discussing science, not philosophy, or poems, or unrealistic interpretations of words. I am skeptic, and I ask questions about science and the answers must be in accord to the proper scientific terms.
If the escape of radiation is "evaporation", then, radioactive material in general evaporate, even the Sun evaporate, and so and so. It is strange that this word evaporate doesn't appear giving that kind of definition in any scientific dictionary. It appears that the most recent editions of dictionaries still without up-dating their information sources.
But, for the ones who use the proper scientific terms to describe phenomena, it is obvious that Hawking made a mistake by using that word.
Please, can you provide who "reviewed" the writings of Hawking before these came out of the printer? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 17:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
Please remember that we are discussing science, not philosophy, or poems, or unrealistic interpretations of words. I am skeptic, and I ask questions about science and the answers must be in accord to the proper scientific terms.
The only stipulation in science is that the terms used are properly defined. Nowhere is there some rule that scientific terms cannot be expanded to include new definitions. That is an error on your part. Take the term "flow." It had been used for centuries to describe the motion characteristic of fluids, but was later expanded to also mean a continuous transfer of energy. This additional definition was not "wrong" or involved breaking any rules. Scientists merely distinguish between what use of the term they mean. And in geology, the term flow has another meaning yet.
Since Hawkings was describing a new phenomenon, he was well within his scientific rights to name the process whatever the hell he wanted to. Thus it is impossible for Hawkings to be "mistaken," as he was the first to coin the term. This happens all the time. Why you think someone can't use a word that already has another meaning is beyond me. You can, so long as you are clear you are using the word in a new way. That is precisely what Hawkings did.
Highly specialized sciences often employ a vocabulary not found in common language dictionaries, so your point that dictionaries have not yet included his definition under the entry for evaporation is irrelevant.
Look, the bottom line is this: Hawkings means what he means. He used a term, defined it, and most everyone who read up on his work understood and accepted the term. If you were confused by his terminology, then just accept that you were in error and move on. It isn't going to change now, especially since most of his peers in the field have no problems with the word's new usage. The word "evaporation" now has an additional definition. You had better get used to it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/07/2005 17:54:54 |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 18:02:12 [Permalink]
|
DR. Mabuse,
The whole expeditions made after 1919 revealed of those stars near the Sun that their arc of displacement was more than 2 seconds.
The measurements made in each opportunity have been different one from another. Even today, the measurements are not 1.7 as a rule but as a lucky chance after several observations. The Americans did not see any displacement in 1918.
This appears to be nothing but a simple phenomena of reflection of images in the turbulent atmosphera of the Sun. Actually, you see everything which is outside our atmosphere with an arc of displacement. When you see the illusion of the Sun "setting", the Sun's body is really under the horizon already, but you still seeing its image right over the horizon because the image of the Sun is reflected in our atmosphera. Our atmosphera is the lens, the same as well, the atmosphere of the Sun is the lens for those stars near it. You do not see the same with the Moon because the atmosphere of the Moon is almost inexistent. You see it with Jupiter and with any celestial body with a considerable atmosphere.
About other phenomena, there is no a perfect vacuum, it is a fact that lots of gases and particles are present in space continually. For example, the solar winds are gases expelled from the Sun filling up the space of our solar system. You look "through" our solar system having our solar system as a round plate in front of you, and stars from the other side will be displaced. You wrongly will say that "gravity" did it, that space-time was distorted. But, it is simply the presence of gases in space acting as a lens.
This can be proved in labs, even in school science projects, the reflection of images, the refraction of light, the displacement of images through a medium -as gases, glass, water- between you and the observed object.
This is enough evidence that the theory of Relativity foundation of the existence of space-time is false. It has never been proved with the predicted displacement of the image of stars near the Sun.
Look at the books of physics, most of them try to show you the "displaced star" as if the star is behind the Sun but its image coming up over the Sun's horizon, and such drawings are exagerate as to draw ants the size of the high pines of Oregon. The displacement is not even notorious to the naked eye in a direct view. You need to measure the displacement of the stars near the Sun by comparing their location with other stars located far away, not so with the Sun.
The whole situation does not fit at all.
It appears that it is a desperate intention to prove Einstein as correct at all cost, as Eddington did in 1919. In other words, if fraud was made in 1919, it appears that such action still in progress.
Look, if Einstein was correct, then the size of the universe is 100 million light years.
Yes, that is the size of the universe according to Einstein in base of the existence of the imaginary space-time.
Did the books of science publish that today? |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 18:17:08 [Permalink]
|
GPS.
My intention was to continue with the presentation of my introduction, but it should appear as unjust to ignore some points of yours.
Clocks do not measure the passage of time. There is not a direct or indirect connection between clocks and any imaginary passage of time.
Movies and books try to give the idea that the slowing of clocks in space ships at high speeds are caused by time dilatation. Other stories try to give the idea that stopping the clock the things around will stop their motion. All of that are imaginations, and you know that.
Clocks are devices calibrated to a fixed functional work. They do tic, tic, tic, tic, tic... They are connected to different sources of energy, mechanical motion with gauges and pendulum, batteries, electricity, and even atomic energy. With all those kind of energy supplying clocks, all the clocks do the same tic, tic, tic, tic, tic.
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data. In an experiment made with my little boy for his school science project, the clocks slowed at a rate of 6 seconds per day.
Then, clocks are affected by changes in their environment.
The atomic clocks are made of matter. Matter is indeed affected in outer space. A fact which give us great surprises, for example liquid metals which won't mix on earth, can be mixed in outerspace.
I might ask you a question. What it guarantees you that atomic clocks won't malfunction in outer space?
Facts about matter being affected in outer space says different.
Actually, any change of environment will affect in one way or another to any kind of clock as long clocks are made of matter. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 18:34:30 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules, do you have any evidence (I am a skeptic, after all) that word usage does not change over time? Can you answer this direct question, which I've asked three times now: why is it that so many scientific words mean more than one thing? After all, since you claim that Mir orbited Earth, it's quite obvious that you meant that Mir was an electron, and the planet is just a big blob of neutrons and protons. At least, that's what your tortured linguistic logic tells us.
On to the second issue. Do you have any evidence that the environment onboard a satellite would affect a highly precise atomic clock by exactly the same amount as Einstein's predicted time dilation would? Time dilation which is, of course, assumed to be due to the high velocity environment (oh, the irony!).
You do realize that the prediction made by the theory of relativity are not random, and that the tests of them - which far post-date the mathematics - suggest that Einstein was correct for a good reason, and not because he guessed? Because what you're implying is that the discrepancies with atomic clocks in orbit around Earth, and the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit around the Sun (two drastically different environments), just coincidentally agree with some math that's nearly a century old.
The same equaions of Einstein's tell us why both discrepancies are found.
So, how should we apply Occam's razor? Either Einstein was right, and space and time are truly interdependent, or you're correct, and there's something unknown which just happens to make the numbers work out exactly like Einstein tells us, even though he was - for whatever undetermined reason - wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 21:14:00 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules it must be wonderful to consider oneself superior in intellect to Einstein.
Here is another example of relativity explaining a natural phenomina:
Muons are elementary particles that are produced when cosmic rays interact with the atmosphere of the Earth. At an altitude of around 15 km above the earth muons are produced and have a lifetime of approximately 0.0000022 s. In Newtonian mechanics, this would mean that the muons, traveling at 99% of the speed of light, would on average travel approximately 660 m before they decay and would not be observed on Earth. A large fraction of the muons do manage to reach the surface though.
Relativity explains why this happens - it is due to time dialation and length contraction.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
