Comments on: Close Enough

By: ianw16

ianw16 — Sat, 10 Dec 2016 05:48:30 +0000

Hmm, two comments, one Youtube link, and a reference to Facebook! I wonder who is doing the peer review on those these days? Probably the same people who were doing it at Kronos, Aeon and the like, in the days before the cranks had access to the internet.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 21:39:58 +0000

That’s some timecube level of logic you got there in the video. Just as a side note, I don’t generally allow self-promotional links in comments. I allowed this one because you’re new, but future hyperlink comments won’t show up here.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 21:32:18 +0000

Hey! Finally a visit by the “rational physics” gnomes! I wondered how long it would take y’all to find me. By all means make me famous. While you’re at it, throw a few shekels to my square account. The monastery doesn’t pay what it used to.

By: Bill Gaede

Bill Gaede — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:32:47 +0000

By the way… I’ve posted the comment on FB so that people can have a laugh at what the ‘experts’ coming out of the monasteries believe in these days. We’ll make you famous, BK.

By: Bill Gaede

Bill Gaede — Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:29:59 +0000

“A black hole is an object”
.
.
The mathemagicians have never defined the term ‘black hole’ scientifically. NASA claims that a black hole is a black BALL whereas the Max Planck Institute insists that a black hole is a REGION…
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiDwqnanAYA
.
You would think that the mathemagicians would be able to tell the difference between a black ball and a region. Therefore, until a mathemagician can decide whether a black hole is one or the other, he cannot claim that it is an object, let alone that this object exists or causes astronomical phenomena.
.
And of course, there is no object that is zero dimensional (0D). The onus is on a mathemagician to DRAW such an ‘object’. Good luck!
.
More to the point… The mathemagicians live with a circular argument…
.
1. a black hole is made solely of ‘something’ they call ‘mass’ (…there is no physical object called ‘mass’, but let’s concede for the sake of argument)
.
2. mass is the quantity of matter
.
3. but a black hole crushes all matter out of existence
.
.
The amusing black spirit of Mathemagix really makes you wonder about the level of indoctrination that the deluded mathemagicians receive at ‘respectable’ peer-reviewed monasteries such as Cambridge and Stanford. It just ‘proves’ that you can make a PhD believe anything.
.
.
.

By: Bimo Juntunen

Bimo Juntunen — Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:21:44 +0000

imagine if you compress a atom hard enough it has to disapear somewhere so it dissapears and then there is a void that slowly becomes a black hole

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:19:22 +0000

Locally the speed of light is always the same.

By: Deekshithdk04

Deekshithdk04 — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:17:48 +0000

I just have a doubt. What happens when a light reaches near a blackhole ? Does the speed of light increases or constant??

By: Joe Lozowski

Joe Lozowski — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:08:16 +0000

Could black holes be filled with atomic nuclei only & all the stripped electrons be the dark matter clouds. Neither can emit light without the other….

By: Daniel Gozzani

Daniel Gozzani — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:16:04 +0000

Interesting point mate…I was thinking the same thing (sort of…) and I came up with my own explanation (not sure at all if it’s right…)
But the way I understand it is that anything with mass can’t reach speed of light…
Energy doesn’t have mass but its effect in the space-time fabric is the same of mass (it bends space-time same way)

Anyway, let’s see if Dr. Koberlein help us out here.

cheers,

By: Quantum.Laser.Cat

Quantum.Laser.Cat — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 07:43:48 +0000

Thanks for another awesome blog article Dr. Koberlein!

So for this one, I think my brain is having trouble wrapping itself around one of the concepts you mentioned, as I am probably misunderstanding something very fundamental about the theory of relativity.

You said that “energy has a gravitational weight just like mass” as stated in the theory of relativity.

But then I was wondering: if a ball of squeezed energy like this, has the equivalence of “weight” to it, and we know that energy can travel at the speed of light (such as light-energy)… but we also know that nothing with non-zero-mass can ever reach the speed of light… then how could energy have “weight”? Wouldn’t the fact that it can have “weight” mean that it can’t achieve the speed of light? (Since it takes infinity energy to accelerate a weight of any kind to light speed.)

Also, let us say that you were to convert all the matter of planet Earth into pure energy (and somehow contain that energy in a magical shield-ball the size of Earth), then would that ball of contained energy have the same gravitational pull as the original Earth? So if you are trying to squeeze an object into a black hole… then even though you are seeing energy appearing in the system, that energy wouldn’t have more gravitational pull than the original system you started with right? So that energy wouldn’t help in collapsing the ball further?

Again, I’m very obviously misunderstanding the Theory of Relativity here, which is probably beyond the scope of the article for you to take time to explain. But ya, I did quite enjoy this fascinating article!

By: K.J.

K.J. — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 22:35:47 +0000

In theory; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star