Extreme Gravitational Forces ? Well well
- Thread starter Tomar
- Start date
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Darby,
We are talking alpha/beta decay correct? Is that not how most of the mass disappates from a Blackhole? Excluding the initial supernova (in the natural sense). X-rays are a small part of the equation, and, almost meaningless as far as Mass is concerned.
You've seen that pic of a blackhole that had a 100 light year jet streaming off of it at the poles. Also, I have not heard of why a blackhole will expel this radiation through its poles even though its gravity is stronger than that of even light. I would LOVE to be enlightened as to how a blackhole can expel this radiation from its poles through the jets... Blackholes tend to be very Very constant regardless of the scale, would you not agree with this statement? I believe the mathematics behind this even show a linear progression based on mass, and not any type of exponential progression. Meaning singularities are cosmic in nature and very well defined by the universe, not some freak occurence. They seem like they are supposed to happen, although I am not sure I understand, in the nature of the universe, the reason behind such an immense force. I believe it is also essential to life.
Just as a Supernova is essential to our lives, higher level elements and all that... Most people fail to realize we are the remnants of some exploded supernova over 4.5 billion years ago, the ones who understand this fact know the true nature of our lives is dependent upon many different steps up the ladder all occuring in order. Very philosophical if you ask me, very beautiful.... As if a symphony of progression were unfolding in front of our eyes...
We are talking alpha/beta decay correct? Is that not how most of the mass disappates from a Blackhole? Excluding the initial supernova (in the natural sense). X-rays are a small part of the equation, and, almost meaningless as far as Mass is concerned.
You've seen that pic of a blackhole that had a 100 light year jet streaming off of it at the poles. Also, I have not heard of why a blackhole will expel this radiation through its poles even though its gravity is stronger than that of even light. I would LOVE to be enlightened as to how a blackhole can expel this radiation from its poles through the jets... Blackholes tend to be very Very constant regardless of the scale, would you not agree with this statement? I believe the mathematics behind this even show a linear progression based on mass, and not any type of exponential progression. Meaning singularities are cosmic in nature and very well defined by the universe, not some freak occurence. They seem like they are supposed to happen, although I am not sure I understand, in the nature of the universe, the reason behind such an immense force. I believe it is also essential to life.
Just as a Supernova is essential to our lives, higher level elements and all that... Most people fail to realize we are the remnants of some exploded supernova over 4.5 billion years ago, the ones who understand this fact know the true nature of our lives is dependent upon many different steps up the ladder all occuring in order. Very philosophical if you ask me, very beautiful.... As if a symphony of progression were unfolding in front of our eyes...
Darby:
It sure sounds like you know what your talking about.
However you are debating one side of an issue without the burden of having the other side of the debate weigh in.
If you are comfortable with your “proof†then great. I only have one question for you. Why are you STILL posting you “beliefs†about JT? I would think someone so sure JT was a fake would have gotten bored discussing it by now. I mean it has been four years since he last posted. But you haven’t stopped posting your "proofs" JT was fake. I wonder why?
It sure sounds like you know what your talking about.
However you are debating one side of an issue without the burden of having the other side of the debate weigh in.
If you are comfortable with your “proof†then great. I only have one question for you. Why are you STILL posting you “beliefs†about JT? I would think someone so sure JT was a fake would have gotten bored discussing it by now. I mean it has been four years since he last posted. But you haven’t stopped posting your "proofs" JT was fake. I wonder why?
Darby
Epochal Historian
Ren,
No - this isn't alpha or beta decay. This is Hawking Radiation. It's a bit too complex to explain in a single post but this radiation is the result of virtual particle/anti-particle pair creation just outside the event horizon. The gravitational field is so incredibly powerful in that area that the virtual particles gain sufficient energy to be real extremely high energy particles.
No - this isn't alpha or beta decay. This is Hawking Radiation. It's a bit too complex to explain in a single post but this radiation is the result of virtual particle/anti-particle pair creation just outside the event horizon. The gravitational field is so incredibly powerful in that area that the virtual particles gain sufficient energy to be real extremely high energy particles.
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
the Debate is ongoing. I cannot speak for Darby, but scientifically I believe you take the facts, evaluate them one by one, and then, and only then, can you make your overall conclusion based on the facts...
I still do not believe JT was fake, but I also do not belive JT was real, I am open minded on the discussion and I welcome all sides of the argument including yours MEM. whats MEM stand for anyway?
Darby
Epochal Historian
MEM,
Why am I still posting about this?
The obvious reason is because I'm a SysAdmin on the site that took over for P2P - the other site that Titor posted on.
Maybe less obvious is my desire to get people to think problems in physics through logically. Titor just acts as a benign stage for the discussion. He didn't know his physics but he has an audience.
And this is a time travel board. What else would I be discussing given that Titor is the number one subject? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Why am I still posting about this?
The obvious reason is because I'm a SysAdmin on the site that took over for P2P - the other site that Titor posted on.
Maybe less obvious is my desire to get people to think problems in physics through logically. Titor just acts as a benign stage for the discussion. He didn't know his physics but he has an audience.
And this is a time travel board. What else would I be discussing given that Titor is the number one subject? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Darby
Epochal Historian
MEM,
I'm not quite sure what this means. On this particular thread I've answered some questions and responded to some posts. I admit that I've posted the results of some calculations without also posting the entire (or in some cases none of the) formulas. I could do that but is it really necessary?
The general point is that taking Titor's words and comparing them to real physics it is rather easy to see where the flaws are.
It's not just an issue that we are not fully familiar with black hole mechanics. We aren't - but we do know an awful lot of what they are. It's an issue of much of what Titor said relative to physics is either not self-consistent or it is simply unphysical.
Two physicists have weighed in on this. Dr. Brown is the obvious one. But "Trott" also weighed in on the subject right here and while Titor was posting.
Dave Trott is still working on his PhD in physics and nuclear engineering but he is also teaching astronomy at Aurora Community College in the Denver area. Go back and look at Trott's posts and Titor's responses. (Google "Dave Trott astronomy" - about 18 pages of hits.)
In any case when I post I usually try to give sufficient fodder for someone to be able to disprove me because I try to post factually along with some numbers (when applicable).
I'm not quite sure what this means. On this particular thread I've answered some questions and responded to some posts. I admit that I've posted the results of some calculations without also posting the entire (or in some cases none of the) formulas. I could do that but is it really necessary?
The general point is that taking Titor's words and comparing them to real physics it is rather easy to see where the flaws are.
It's not just an issue that we are not fully familiar with black hole mechanics. We aren't - but we do know an awful lot of what they are. It's an issue of much of what Titor said relative to physics is either not self-consistent or it is simply unphysical.
Two physicists have weighed in on this. Dr. Brown is the obvious one. But "Trott" also weighed in on the subject right here and while Titor was posting.
Dave Trott is still working on his PhD in physics and nuclear engineering but he is also teaching astronomy at Aurora Community College in the Denver area. Go back and look at Trott's posts and Titor's responses. (Google "Dave Trott astronomy" - about 18 pages of hits.)
In any case when I post I usually try to give sufficient fodder for someone to be able to disprove me because I try to post factually along with some numbers (when applicable).
Darby,
I can't argue any of your math, I looked up this site: http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/core1.htm but I need some paper and I dont feel like getting up...so I trust ya.
How they captured a BH seems like such an obvious thing for JT to have been asked an answered but I can't find the posts ! Would they use a magnectic field like you mentioned to capture it? What did JT say when you mentioned the field would be consumed by the black hole and converted to mass?
I know that it's not directly observed at the moment, but thats not to say they won't try something like directly observing it if they can get it to stick around. This would obviously be very difficult and physists would need a very good reason to try this since you clearly said, the em field would be consumed and the BH wouldn't be contained unless the field got stronger and stronger. So why try in the first place? JT should have explained why we tried. But I can not find the posts arg!
It sounds like you are describing them to be micro "sponges" that absorb the hawking radiation which results in a production of xrays that require venting. I could be wrong.
I do not think we have much data on the state of electrons in proximity to dual microsingularities contained in an em field.
I can't argue any of your math, I looked up this site: http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/core1.htm but I need some paper and I dont feel like getting up...so I trust ya.
How they captured a BH seems like such an obvious thing for JT to have been asked an answered but I can't find the posts ! Would they use a magnectic field like you mentioned to capture it? What did JT say when you mentioned the field would be consumed by the black hole and converted to mass?
I know that it's not directly observed at the moment, but thats not to say they won't try something like directly observing it if they can get it to stick around. This would obviously be very difficult and physists would need a very good reason to try this since you clearly said, the em field would be consumed and the BH wouldn't be contained unless the field got stronger and stronger. So why try in the first place? JT should have explained why we tried. But I can not find the posts arg!
It sounds like you are describing them to be micro "sponges" that absorb the hawking radiation which results in a production of xrays that require venting. I could be wrong.
I do not think we have much data on the state of electrons in proximity to dual microsingularities contained in an em field.
Darby,
"And this is a time travel board. What else would I be discussing given that Titor is the number one subject?"
I think it's great to discuss JT. What I think is intellectually dishonest is to "prove" him right or wrong based on his description of how time travel works without having enough of the details to offer up a legitimate repudiation of his theory. JT was not specific enough to offer an counter argument on his explanation of time travel.
For example, you wrote:
"With a micro mass black hole as in Titor's Saga (maximum 100 kg each because there are two and he said the mass of the entire gadget was ~500 lbs or about 225 kg) you don't have to worry about it gobbling up the Earth. You do have to worry about the Hawking Radiation. The BH's would evaporate in a few billionths of a second thus converting 200 kg of mass to energy in that time.
The conversion factor is approximately 100 megatons per 5 kg of mass. So Titor's Gadget would "evaporate" with a release of energy equivalent to a 4,000 megaton hydrogen bomb."
Now mind you I know enough about physics to know I don't know if what you wrote is accurate or even relevant to JT's theory about time travel. And I'm pretty sure most on this board are in the same boat. I will accept as a rebuttal someone who has a Ph.D. in quantum physics and is actively working in the field of creating enough energy to artificially create a micro-singularity at a place like the RHIC in Brookhaven National Lab. A BS or MS twenty years ago does not count.
How do you kow that JT's details found a way around the exact problem you describe? Do you see my point?
"And this is a time travel board. What else would I be discussing given that Titor is the number one subject?"
I think it's great to discuss JT. What I think is intellectually dishonest is to "prove" him right or wrong based on his description of how time travel works without having enough of the details to offer up a legitimate repudiation of his theory. JT was not specific enough to offer an counter argument on his explanation of time travel.
For example, you wrote:
"With a micro mass black hole as in Titor's Saga (maximum 100 kg each because there are two and he said the mass of the entire gadget was ~500 lbs or about 225 kg) you don't have to worry about it gobbling up the Earth. You do have to worry about the Hawking Radiation. The BH's would evaporate in a few billionths of a second thus converting 200 kg of mass to energy in that time.
The conversion factor is approximately 100 megatons per 5 kg of mass. So Titor's Gadget would "evaporate" with a release of energy equivalent to a 4,000 megaton hydrogen bomb."
Now mind you I know enough about physics to know I don't know if what you wrote is accurate or even relevant to JT's theory about time travel. And I'm pretty sure most on this board are in the same boat. I will accept as a rebuttal someone who has a Ph.D. in quantum physics and is actively working in the field of creating enough energy to artificially create a micro-singularity at a place like the RHIC in Brookhaven National Lab. A BS or MS twenty years ago does not count.
How do you kow that JT's details found a way around the exact problem you describe? Do you see my point?
Proof
I think your taking this from the wrong angle regarding proof.
Let me put it simply. A guy comes forward with a weird story.
You are saying in essence we "must" prove that this is hoax, else you will go on believing it could be true.
I would say its up to the guy with the weird story to provide proof.
In this particular case, I think he has failed utterly to do that. He has attempted to do it using "predictions", photos and schematics among other things.
1. His so called "predictions" have not happened and other major events he did not predict on the other hand have happened
2. His "photographic" evidence is clearly a hoax
3. The plans and schematics he has provided look incredibly backward (very 1960's) for a society which has allegedly mastered very advanced technology (but is still behind what we do today in terms of print or photo quality)
So why exactly would you think we need to believe anything this guy says ?
Sure I d love to travel in time. But hoaxes will not help.
I think your taking this from the wrong angle regarding proof.
Let me put it simply. A guy comes forward with a weird story.
You are saying in essence we "must" prove that this is hoax, else you will go on believing it could be true.
I would say its up to the guy with the weird story to provide proof.
In this particular case, I think he has failed utterly to do that. He has attempted to do it using "predictions", photos and schematics among other things.
1. His so called "predictions" have not happened and other major events he did not predict on the other hand have happened
2. His "photographic" evidence is clearly a hoax
3. The plans and schematics he has provided look incredibly backward (very 1960's) for a society which has allegedly mastered very advanced technology (but is still behind what we do today in terms of print or photo quality)
So why exactly would you think we need to believe anything this guy says ?
Sure I d love to travel in time. But hoaxes will not help.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Proof
Eggs Zactly, Tomar!
Burden of proof always lies with the person making extreme claims. People who get wrapped up in trying the opposite (to prove he is fake) are in an endless quest.
It's why I wish people would let a sleeping Titor lie! (double entendre intended!)
RMT
Eggs Zactly, Tomar!
Burden of proof always lies with the person making extreme claims. People who get wrapped up in trying the opposite (to prove he is fake) are in an endless quest.
It's why I wish people would let a sleeping Titor lie! (double entendre intended!)
RMT
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Re: Proof
While Rainman is correct, and burden of proof is on the poster. I would like to quote a show I used to watch before it turned Aweful.
"I want to believe."
I am more than willing to put my beliefs on the line and be as objective as possible, in not accepting or dismissing the claims until one by one I can prove or disprove them. A lot of JT's predictions occur in the coming years, especially in 2005 which he says is the beginning. (2004-2005). He never admitted he was a hoax so unlike Chronohistorian there is still a question in my mind. I do believe in time, lets say oh 10 years, everyone will be 100% certain if this was a hoax or not, but in the meantime I will continue on examining both sides of the issue as objectively as possible.
One thing JT did that many others have not, he sure did say a lot. Most hoaxers show up, state their lame story, it cracks under the pressure and they just disappear. This case was different and I choose to treat it differently.
if you are asking if I believe JT is a hoax or not, well, I have no opinion on that yet, just that the Laser pic is Farked!
While Rainman is correct, and burden of proof is on the poster. I would like to quote a show I used to watch before it turned Aweful.
"I want to believe."
I am more than willing to put my beliefs on the line and be as objective as possible, in not accepting or dismissing the claims until one by one I can prove or disprove them. A lot of JT's predictions occur in the coming years, especially in 2005 which he says is the beginning. (2004-2005). He never admitted he was a hoax so unlike Chronohistorian there is still a question in my mind. I do believe in time, lets say oh 10 years, everyone will be 100% certain if this was a hoax or not, but in the meantime I will continue on examining both sides of the issue as objectively as possible.
One thing JT did that many others have not, he sure did say a lot. Most hoaxers show up, state their lame story, it cracks under the pressure and they just disappear. This case was different and I choose to treat it differently.
if you are asking if I believe JT is a hoax or not, well, I have no opinion on that yet, just that the Laser pic is Farked!
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Re: Proof
Hey Ren
I don't think the laser pick is farked. It tells a story all by itself. But the story the pic tells exactly matches what Titor said about how his machine works. He clearly states there is an inner event horizon close to the black holes. He also goes on to state that there is an outer event horizon that encompasses the vehicle. So the vehicle with time machine exist within these two event horizons during time travel. Apparently this area between event horizons is shielded somehow from any intense gravitational effects. But the pic shows that. You can clearly see the laser beam is not bent untill after it is outside the vehicle. As for whether this is real or fake still remains to be shown. Our present day science can't manipulate gravity. So the effects depicted in the pic are not verifiable with present day science.
I can easily come up with a hypothetical method to allow the black holes to remain stable. And my explanation would actually be very believable.
Hey Ren
I don't think the laser pick is farked. It tells a story all by itself. But the story the pic tells exactly matches what Titor said about how his machine works. He clearly states there is an inner event horizon close to the black holes. He also goes on to state that there is an outer event horizon that encompasses the vehicle. So the vehicle with time machine exist within these two event horizons during time travel. Apparently this area between event horizons is shielded somehow from any intense gravitational effects. But the pic shows that. You can clearly see the laser beam is not bent untill after it is outside the vehicle. As for whether this is real or fake still remains to be shown. Our present day science can't manipulate gravity. So the effects depicted in the pic are not verifiable with present day science.
I can easily come up with a hypothetical method to allow the black holes to remain stable. And my explanation would actually be very believable.
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Re: Proof
Sounds Good to me, awaiting this hypothetical method...
Sounds Good to me, awaiting this hypothetical method...
Cryomaniac
Chrono Cadet
I am still not convinced the entire Titor story was a hoax, all that we can conclude at this point is that the Laser pic was a hoax. I remain open minded. However if enough new information comes out, that may change in the future... No offense Rainmain you know we're still cool...
Yeah, proof that one picture is a fake doesn't prove that the whole thing was a work, but it does go some way I guess, I'm staying open minded though, because jumping on bandwagons is never a wise idea.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Re: Proof
Ren
It is hypothetical because I don't have any miniture black holes to test it on. But a black hole really is just a form of highly condensed mass. Mass appears to be a static unmoving form of energy. Now the question comes to mind, what makes mass stable? Why doesn't it just spill over and relaese all its energy. The mass inside an atomic nucleus in most of the elements is stable. Part of the answer is there. Also take note that if an object were to actually reach the speed of light, the flow of time is supposed to stop. The flow of time seems to be the key. If there were two opposing time flows in balance, it would appear that time was standing still. So at the speed of light the internal flow of time within matter would exactly balance the external time flow in space. It would be locked in place. So the key to making that miniture black hole stable is to stop its internal flow of time with an equal but opposite external flow of time. Obviously it wont be the internal time flow of the unstable black hole that we can control. But the flow of time within the space surrounding the black hole could possibly be altered to an equal opposing value. Once that value is reached and maintained, the black hole becomes stable.
You might say that isn't fair because I manipulated the dimension of time to get the desired result. But that is a piece of the puzzle that drops into place quite nicely. All that need be done now is to develop a method to alter the flow of time in space. I'm presently working on this. A very interesting experiment that shows time being slowed down to a crawl is on my desktop.
Ren
It is hypothetical because I don't have any miniture black holes to test it on. But a black hole really is just a form of highly condensed mass. Mass appears to be a static unmoving form of energy. Now the question comes to mind, what makes mass stable? Why doesn't it just spill over and relaese all its energy. The mass inside an atomic nucleus in most of the elements is stable. Part of the answer is there. Also take note that if an object were to actually reach the speed of light, the flow of time is supposed to stop. The flow of time seems to be the key. If there were two opposing time flows in balance, it would appear that time was standing still. So at the speed of light the internal flow of time within matter would exactly balance the external time flow in space. It would be locked in place. So the key to making that miniture black hole stable is to stop its internal flow of time with an equal but opposite external flow of time. Obviously it wont be the internal time flow of the unstable black hole that we can control. But the flow of time within the space surrounding the black hole could possibly be altered to an equal opposing value. Once that value is reached and maintained, the black hole becomes stable.
You might say that isn't fair because I manipulated the dimension of time to get the desired result. But that is a piece of the puzzle that drops into place quite nicely. All that need be done now is to develop a method to alter the flow of time in space. I'm presently working on this. A very interesting experiment that shows time being slowed down to a crawl is on my desktop.
RenUnconscious
Quantum Scribe
Re: Proof
I have mentioned in other threads possibly this one I believe time is multi-directional and so this would fit in with what you are saying. Now my only questions is.
Might we see this experiment?
I have mentioned in other threads possibly this one I believe time is multi-directional and so this would fit in with what you are saying. Now my only questions is.
Might we see this experiment?
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Re: Proof
Well you seen my post a while back on my gravity field experiment. It showed two aluminum disks being horizontally attracted to two larger objects. Since I did determine there was no magnetic fields present causing this behavior, I decided to introduce a very high strength magnetic field close to one of the larger objects. I just placed my neodymium magnet behind a metal plate on the right side in the video. The aluminum disk on the left attracted wildly to the metal disk on the left when I turned on the device. But the aluminum disk on the right just seemed to stand still. I figured I just killed the effect by introducing the huge magnetic field. That is untill a couple of minutes later I happened to notice that the aluminum disk on the right was now attached to the metal plate. That seemed too good to be true. So I turned off the machine and restarted it, this time with a stop watch timing the amount of time it took for the aluminum disk on the right to attract to its metal plate. 21 seconds. The aluminum disk on the left took less than 1 second. So it appears that with the addition of the high strength magnetic field, time was slowed down by 21 times. A method to control the flow of time has presented itself to me.
Well you seen my post a while back on my gravity field experiment. It showed two aluminum disks being horizontally attracted to two larger objects. Since I did determine there was no magnetic fields present causing this behavior, I decided to introduce a very high strength magnetic field close to one of the larger objects. I just placed my neodymium magnet behind a metal plate on the right side in the video. The aluminum disk on the left attracted wildly to the metal disk on the left when I turned on the device. But the aluminum disk on the right just seemed to stand still. I figured I just killed the effect by introducing the huge magnetic field. That is untill a couple of minutes later I happened to notice that the aluminum disk on the right was now attached to the metal plate. That seemed too good to be true. So I turned off the machine and restarted it, this time with a stop watch timing the amount of time it took for the aluminum disk on the right to attract to its metal plate. 21 seconds. The aluminum disk on the left took less than 1 second. So it appears that with the addition of the high strength magnetic field, time was slowed down by 21 times. A method to control the flow of time has presented itself to me.