Questions for the scientists in our midst

[Marblehead]

Hey 9th! I see you have done your homework. Good job!

 

So is there really a white hole at the other end of a black hole?

 

(Yes, that's a trick question. Hehehe.)

[manitou]

 

 

How is time changed in a black hole?

 

Well, in a certain sense it is not changed at all. If you were to enter a black hole, you would find you watch ticking along at the same rate as it always had (assuming both you and the watch survived the passage into the black hole). Although your watch as seen by you would not change its ticking rate, just as in special relativity (if you know anything about that), someone else would see a different ticking rate on your watch than the usual, and you would see their watch to be ticking at a different than normal rate. For example, if you were to station yourself just outside a black hole, while you would find your own watch ticking at the normal rate, you would see the watch of a friend at great distance from the hole to be ticking at a much faster rate than yours. That friend would see his own watch ticking at a normal rate, but see your watch to be ticking at a much slower rate. Thus if you stayed just outside the black hole for a while, then went back to join your friend, you would find that the friend had aged more than you had during your separation.

 

What is the best evidence for the existence of black holes? Is it all really just a theory?

 

Astronomers have found a half-dozen or so binary star systems (two stars orbiting each other) where one of the stars is invisible, yet must be there since it pulls with enough gravitational force on the other visible star to make that star orbit around their common center of gravity AND the mass of the invisible star is considerably greater than 3 to 5 solar masses. Therefore these invisible stars are thought to be good candidate black holes. There is also evidence that supermassive black holes (about 1 billion solar masses) exist at the centers of many galaxies and quasars. In this latter case other explanations of the output of energy by quasars are not as good as the explanation using a supermassive black hole. (You see, when matter falls in a gravitational field, its speed and therefore energy, increases. If lots of matter is falling in at the same time, and swirling around the black hole in a disk resembling a traffic jam in a cul-de-sac, then friction between the various pieces of matter will turn much of that speed-energy picked up during the fall into heat, which than gets radiated away. In this way, the matter surrounding a supermassive black hole can radiate more energy per gram of fuel than can be released by any other mechanism we know, including nuclear fusion.)

 

I have a couple questions, 9th, you brilliant thing, you.

 

From what I'm reading of what you said, I get the impression that the person going into the black hole would age at a faster rate? Or am I reading this backward? Is this exactly opposite of the 'traveling out in space and coming back younger than the one still here on earth?' Is it exactly opposite (wherein the blackhole would make one age faster, while going out in space would make one age slower)? Or am I just all boggled up?

 

My second question refers to your second paragraph, where you said "....AND the mass of the invisible star is considerably greater than 3 to 5 solar masses" Does this mean that all solar masses are of the same size, by the very nature of it being a solar mass? Are suns constant in size, or are some larger than others? Are not the cores different in size, meaning varying circumferences of the whole?

Edited November 13, 2013 by manitou

[9th]

I have a couple questions, 9th, you brilliant thing, you.

 

From what I'm reading of what you said, I get the impression that the person going into the black hole would age at a faster rate? Or am I reading this backward? Is this exactly opposite of the 'traveling out in space and coming back younger than the one still here on earth?' Is it exactly opposite (wherein the blackhole would make one age faster, while going out in space would make one age slower)? Or am I just all boggled up?

 

The normal presentation of these gravitational time dilation effects can lead one to a mistaken conclusion. It is true that if an observer (X) is stationary near the event horizon of a black hole, and a second observer (Y) is stationary at great distance from the event horizon, then Y will see X's clock to be ticking slow, and X will see Y's clock to be ticking fast. But if X falls down toward the event horizon (eventually crossing it) while Y remains stationary, then what each sees is not as straightforward as the above situation suggests.

As Y sees things: X falls toward the event horizon, photons from X take longer and longer to climb out of the "gravtiational well" leading to the apparent slowing down of X's clock as seen by Y, and when X is at the horizon, any photon emitted by X's clock takes (formally) an infinite time to get out to Y. Imagine that each person's clock emits one photon for each tick of the clock, to make it easy to think about. Thus, X appears to freeze, as seen by Y. However, X has crossed the event horizon! It is only an illusion (literally an "optical" illusion) that makes Y think X never crosses the horizon.

As X sees things: X falls, and crosses the horizon (in perhaps a very short time). X sees Y's clock emitting photons, but X is rushing away from Y, and so never gets to collect more than a finite number of those photons before crossing the event horizon. (If you wish, you can think of this as due to a cancellation of the gravitational time dilation by a doppler effect --- due to the motion of X away from Y). After crossing the event horizon, the photons coming in from above are not easily sorted out by origin, so X cannot figure out how Y's clock continued to tick.

A finite number of photons were emitted by X before X crossed the horizon, and a finite number of photons were emitted by Y (and collected by X) before X crossed the horizon.

You might ask 'What if X were to be lowered ever so slowly toward the event horizon?' Yes, then the doppler effect would not come into play, UNTIL, at some practical limit, X got too close to the horizon and would not be able to keep from falling in. Then X would only see a finite total of photons from Y (but now a larger number --- covering more of Y's time). Of course, if X "hung on" long enough before actually falling in, then X might see the future course of the universe.

 

 

My second question refers to your second paragraph, where you said "....AND the mass of the invisible star is considerably greater than 3 to 5 solar masses" Does this mean that all solar masses are of the same size, by the very nature of it being a solar mass? Are suns constant in size, or are some larger than others? Are not the cores different in size, meaning varying circumferences of the whole?

 

The solar mass () is a standard unit of mass in astronomy that is used to indicate the masses of other stars, as well as clusters, nebulae and galaxies. It is equal to the mass of the Sun, about two nonillion kilograms:

• 

[Mark Foote]

space has weight- did I get that right? Is that dark matter, that space with weight, or is that something else? (thanks, Neophyte, I'd already seen the first one, the second one kept me for the twenty six minutes no problem).

[Bearded Dragon]

Bearded Dragon- the laws of physics, as man understands them, may not be the All in All. Aren't the most incredible discoveries (electricity, etc) often obtained from intuition, from dreams? Is it possible that there is a perpetual motion principle of which we are not yet aware, that involves no diminution of energy? I'm thinking it is maybe the difference between physical thought and metaphysical thought. The complete merger of the 'right and left brain' would seem to be the perfect balance to discover that which remains undiscovered.

 

No. Intuition and dreams usually follow something grounded in reality. There is nothing that creates energy other than the Tao and we have a fat chance making a Tao machine.

 

As was mentioned (which I didn't explain properly) you cannot create or lose energy, only transform it. Perpetual motion within the environment of the earth would require energy to perpetuate, or in other words it would have to create energy from nothing in order to perpetuate. Perpetual motion in a vacuum would only require an initial stimulus and it would go forever, but to create a vacuum on earth requires a tremendous amount of energy which is hardly within the definition of perpetuation.

[Stosh]

The OPTICAL ILLUSION of what happens at the event horizon was nicely described.

 

Regardless of whether the' pace of what happens' slows or speeds up in the circumstance person A ,,

(as seen by person' B'),,,, to person 'A' ,events seem to be at the same pace.

This relative situation holds for normal water cooler, lunchtime,

drive to work experiences as well, it just that it appears more extreme at an event horizon.

At least thats the theory anyway.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Stosh

[Nungali]

http://www.antenna-theory.com/definitions/magneticDipole.jpg

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/imgmag/magfi.gif

 

 

Well ... since people are throwing questions at scientists

 

I have a magnetic question; Looking at a magnetic field pattern around a bar magnet (with paper and filings) or around the Earth (as I have seen depicted in images) the 'lines of force' ( force? intensities in the field ? ) run out from one pole (-) at a steep angle, hug the magnet bar or sphere and run in (+) at the other. Yeah ?

 

As the lines run out from the pole, closer to the exact pole, they curve less and travel further out from the surface then curve back in to a similar position in the opposite pole ( because nearer the centre they emerge with or have more force ?).

 

And so on, until dead centre of the pole a line flows straight out of the pole and one flows straight in at the opposite pole and all are aligned along the magnetic axis . Yes?

 

If that is right my question is where do these ends of these central straight lines meet to keep that force flow happening?

 

All the other lines seem to flow out one pole and curve into the other in a + and - magnetic charge.

 

Or am I basically wrong about magnetism ? (I thought was a spin direction) ?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

I wish I knew more about magnetism than I do so I could answer your question.

 

The only thing I can speak to is your antenna picture. That is a center-fed, likely doublet (half-wave but could be full-wave) antenna oriented to communicate in one single direction broadside of the antenna. Yes, an equal amount of energy will be radiated in the opposite direction and some energy will be radiated at a 360 degree distribution.

 

The length of the antenna wire will be determined by the frequency of the transmitter so it has limited use.

[Stosh]

http://www.antenna-theory.com/definitions/magneticDipole.jpg

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/imgmag/magfi.gif

 

 

Well ... since people are throwing questions at scientists

 

I have a magnetic question; Looking at a magnetic field pattern around a bar magnet (with paper and filings) or around the Earth (as I have seen depicted in images) the 'lines of force' ( force? intensities in the field ? ) run out from one pole (-) at a steep angle, hug the magnet bar or sphere and run in (+) at the other. Yeah ?

 

As the lines run out from the pole, closer to the exact pole, they curve less and travel further out from the surface then curve back in to a similar position in the opposite pole ( because nearer the centre they emerge with or have more force ?).

 

And so on, until dead centre of the pole a line flows straight out of the pole and one flows straight in at the opposite pole and all are aligned along the magnetic axis . Yes?

 

If that is right my question is where do these ends of these central straight lines meet to keep that force flow happening?

 

All the other lines seem to flow out one pole and curve into the other in a + and - magnetic charge.

 

Or am I basically wrong about magnetism ? (I thought was a spin direction) ?

Im thinking those lines are abstractions , indicating vectors of the attraction force from one end of the thing to the other end because the nearest thing that its attracted to is ....( its own arse) .

Where the Line comes out straight is the vector that is "surrounded by only slightly deviating field densities" the interactions of multiples of magnets should be more revealing than the simplified one.

The lines are of particular field densities and like a topo map they are essentially contiguous out to infinity, where all heck breaks loose.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stosh

[manitou]

 

No. Intuition and dreams usually follow something grounded in reality.

 

You guys are SO over my head. But I wonder about your use of the term reality. The context you're using it seems to cover the realm of the physical. When you get into heady readings and understanding of the Nature of Thought, there are many who would argue that Thought is the reality, not matter. That matter in and of itself has no intelligence, that matter only has intelligence when inhabited by Thought or Mind. And that Love was the vehicle for all this, the initial cause; the One before the Two. The Two were created asexually (I imagine cell division to see this), the Three by copulation (or active energy manifesting the physical).

 

Dreams, as I see it, are grounded in the familiar to get a point across to us so that we can see the metaphor. My dreams are often predictive or assist to See something that I have been cogitating, like in a healing setting - where I'm trying to triangulate what about a person's malady is pertinent to what is going on in their life; to assist to find the lowest common denominator between the supposed malady and the physical manifestations of what's going on in the body; whether it be cancer, or in my most recent case, quadriplegia. There is a connection there, a real connection, that can be sent in another direction, or 'the light is bent' at the lowest common denominator. These insights (while dreaming) stem from an intuition that is unexplainable; I wouldn't begin to write them off as merely a consequence of the reality of matter. There is creation in these dreams, as we are the creator. It is within us to manifest, as in the beginning. We are the Thinker, as Rodin well knew. There must be a canal of connection between the original thought or genesis, and the physical connection or matter. My guess is that it has something to do with the emanation of the Love phenomena, in some way, as the Void manifested matter. Guess I just need to ask the Void what it was thinking about, lol.

[Stosh]

There is legitimacy in calling eiter grouping " reality" as if it had some more legit existance. The true reality consists of both . For the sake of not sounding like a crazy person , the normal is to call that which is objective real... though the subjective is experienced directly.

[Marblehead]

You guys are SO over my head.

Well, it was your question. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

... though the subjective is experienced directly.

Are you sure about that?

[Stosh]

Are you sure about that?

Well I feel certainty about it , and I dont know of any view that would contradict it.

If you can think of such a circumstance ,

by all means, share it or explain it . (as long as you personally feel it to be a correcter view)

[manitou]

The subjective experience of 'reality' cannot be explained to anyone who has not had the inner gulps of realization. This is called self-realization, and it's every bit as real as that which is learned in our brains from outward input. Actually, in my experience, I do believe it's realer.

 

Yes, Marbles, it is over my head, the head-learnin' part. My education, if I have any at all, is almost entirely experiential, the inner gulps of awareness, which has been as a result of my path in life. It is largely due to the 'prodigal son' experience that my life has been, combined with the serendipitous readings of literature by masters of all persuasions. This has resulted in a triangulation of knowledge. I know it was my question, but please don't roll your eyes if I can't quite keep up with your answers. I am trying.

Edited November 14, 2013 by manitou

[Marblehead]

Well I feel certainty about it , and I dont know of any view that would contradict it.

If you can think of such a circumstance ,

by all means, share it or explain it . (as long as you personally feel it to be a correcter view)

I will suggest to you that the objective is the true experience. Subjectively, we have already put our value judgements on the experience.

 

I'm not saying I am correcter but this is my understanding.

[Marblehead]

I know it was my question, but please don't roll your eyes if I can't quite keep up with your answers. I am trying.

I know you are trying. And I think you are doing pretty darned good in those areas where you have no first hand experience. So don't worry yourself about it.

 

No, I don't roll my eyes. In real life here I will take the time to further explain something to someone who shows an interest in anything I might be talking about. Doing that is a little difficult on the internet.

 

 

There are many things people talk about on this forum that I have no idea what they are talking about. Apparently I never had an interest in those things else I would know enough to at least be dangerous.

 

You have your interests. You are persuing those interests. Good job!

[9th]

[Stosh]

I will suggest to you that the objective is the true experience. Subjectively, we have already put our value judgements on the experience.

 

I'm not saying I am correcter but this is my understanding.

Hmmm, but , but , but....I cant experience the objective because its filtered by our senses and contaminated by our preconceptions.

Would not a dream catagorize as subjective by your reckoning ?

[Stosh]

The subjective experience of 'reality' cannot be explained to anyone who has not had the inner gulps of realization. This is called self-realization, and it's every bit as real as that which is learned in our brains from outward input. Actually, in my experience, I do believe it's realer.

Ok , I understand that sentiment. No problemo.

I should probably leave you and Mh to duke it out then.

To see who's real is more real.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stosh

[manitou]

Ok , I understand that sentiment. No problemo.

I should probably leave you and Mh to duke it out then.

To see who's real is more real.

Can't be done.

[manitou]

 

LOL. Well, that was a breath of fresh air....

[Stosh]

Can't be done.

Well, thats why my position is what it is,

the two worlds interplay ,

and they could be said to have greater validity within the sphere they embody but do not invalidate the other sphere. You can pick whichever you want to call more 'real'- thats arbitrary, the true picture is that they both can lay claim to the world real for different reasons. so both of y'all are incorrect... and Im right either way.

[Marblehead]

Hmmm, but , but , but....I cant experience the objective because its filtered by our senses and contaminated by our preconceptions.

Would not a dream catagorize as subjective by your reckoning ?

Hehehe. First sentence you supported my arguement, not your own. Remove the filters, destroy the pre-everythings. The sage has no mind of his own.

 

Yes, a dream is totally subjective unless some lady is doing something to you while you sleep or some other such condition.

[Marblehead]

... and Im right either way.

You're always right Stosh. It's just that sometimes you are right off track. But that's okay. Just make sure that the next time you go out and hug a tree you understand that it really is a tree and not something else.