Cycling UK Forum

kwackers wrote:

TonyR wrote:Naked singularities have been known as a theoretical concept for decades. You just need a rotating black hole to get one. And for decades theorists have not known how to deal with the theory of a point that is infinitely small and infinitely dense because the laws of physics as we know them (or rather their mathematics) break down under those conditions.

I haven't had chance to listen to the podcast yet but my (very limited) understanding is that singularities can't really exist since from our perspective matter falling into a black hole will never have reached the centre due to time dilation.

Another thing I was reading a few weeks ago was that there may well be a limit to how dense matter can get. Singularities assume that matter can compress infinitely but there's no evidence that this is true (and in fact black holes could in theory 'explode'!)
Since the issues with singularities are all to do with the theoretical notion that matter can exist as a singularity then if it turned out not to be true then the issues we were having no longer exist.

Just checked and it all dates back to 1969 when Roger Penrose proposed the Cosmic Censorship hypothesis to protect the universe from the problems a naked singularity poses to physics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ ... hypothesis

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:An interesting podcast discussing some theoretical research that might be questioning General Relativity - not that it is wrong (just as Newton is not "wrong"). Discusses the possibility of naked singularities and cosmic censorship and surprisingly I found it understandable'ish.

It starts close enough to the start of the podcast https://audioboom.com/boos/4221795-space-time-with-stuart-gary-series-19-ep-6-biggest-known-black-hole-discovered-plus-more (starts discussing the largest black hole ever discovered and soon moved on to the more theoretical stuff).

Ian

Naked singularities have been known as a theoretical concept for decades. You just need a rotating black hole to get one. And for decades theorists have not known how to deal with the theory of a point that is infinitely small and infinitely dense because the laws of physics as we know them (or rather their mathematics) break down under those conditions.

In this research they were talking about new theoretical/simulations and the shape of the black hole (in 5 dimensions). Black hole becomes shaped as a very thin ring which over time gave rise to a series of bulges connected by thin strings. These connecting strings then pinch off giving rise to a series of black holes, their analogy was like a slow running tap where the smooth flow breaks up into droplets. New research bit is that, whilst ring shaped black holes were discovered in 2002 (by theoretical physicists), until now the dynamics have never been successfully simulated. Research from Cambridge and QMC.

Starts 4:00 mins into the podcastd ends at 10:00 mins, - which is confusing as the preceding 4 mins is also about black holes (but about real big ones in another galaxy).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:In this research they were talking about new theoretical/simulations and the shape of the black hole (in 5 dimensions). Black hole becomes shaped as a very thin ring which over time gave rise to a series of bulges connected by thin strings. These connecting strings then pinch off giving rise to a series of black holes, their analogy was like a slow running tap where the smooth flow breaks up into droplets. New research bit is that, whilst ring shaped black holes were discovered in 2002 (by theoretical physicists), until now the dynamics have never been successfully simulated. Research from Cambridge and QMC.

I think you are talking about this. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/five ... relativity

But as I say its been known for decades that a naked singularity breaks general relativity and physics as we know it in general. This is just a particular theoretical construct to create a naked singularity.

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:In this research they were talking about new theoretical/simulations and the shape of the black hole (in 5 dimensions). Black hole becomes shaped as a very thin ring which over time gave rise to a series of bulges connected by thin strings. These connecting strings then pinch off giving rise to a series of black holes, their analogy was like a slow running tap where the smooth flow breaks up into droplets. New research bit is that, whilst ring shaped black holes were discovered in 2002 (by theoretical physicists), until now the dynamics have never been successfully simulated. Research from Cambridge and QMC.

I think you are talking about this. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/five ... relativity

But as I say its been known for decades that a naked singularity breaks general relativity and physics as we know it in general. This is just a particular theoretical construct to create a naked singularity.

Quite possibly. But I got it from the podcast and thought others might also be interested. And I note that the link you posted was dated 19 Feb 2016. What it seemed about was the research that had managed to simulate the dynamics of the thin ring black hole breaking up, not the existence of naked black holes nor cosmic censorship. I found the podcast gave a good clear explanation, background and the latest research achievement.

Sorry, I'll shut up as there seems no pleasing some people. I try and it's all get such hard work.

Given up

Ian

Psamathe wrote:Sorry, I'll shut up as there seems no pleasing some people. I try and it's all get such hard work.

Given up

Ian

Its called having a discussion. If you don't want a discussion you want a blog not a forum.

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Sorry, I'll shut up as there seems no pleasing some people. I try and it's all get such hard work.

Given up

Ian

Its called having a discussion. If you don't want a discussion you want a blog not a forum.

I tried. Through it was interesting (for some). But oh no, "it's old news", "I knew this years ago", "this is just ..." ...

So I just can't be bothered if people are reacting like that. You try and discuss but others keep having their digs. So I just can't be bothered any more. I find something interesting great for me but sharing has just got to much of an effort.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Sorry, I'll shut up as there seems no pleasing some people. I try and it's all get such hard work.

Given up

Ian

Its called having a discussion. If you don't want a discussion you want a blog not a forum.

I tried. Through it was interesting (for some). But oh no, "it's old news", "I knew this years ago", "this is just ..." ...

So I just can't be bothered if people are reacting like that. You try and discuss but others keep having their digs. So I just can't be bothered any more. I find something interesting great for me but sharing has just got to much of an effort.

Happens all the time that someone posts something new bicycle wise only to be informed that its nothing new at all. Do you consider discussing that too much of an effort too? If you don't want to discuss it and learn in the process then posting to a forum is really not a good idea. Forums are for dialogues, not monologues.

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:

TonyR wrote:...
Its called having a discussion. If you don't want a discussion you want a blog not a forum.

I tried. Through it was interesting (for some). But oh no, "it's old news", "I knew this years ago", "this is just ..." ...

So I just can't be bothered if people are reacting like that. You try and discuss but others keep having their digs. So I just can't be bothered any more. I find something interesting great for me but sharing has just got to much of an effort.

Happens all the time that someone posts something new bicycle wise only to be informed that its nothing new at all. Do you consider discussing that too much of an effort too? If you don't want to discuss it and learn in the process then posting to a forum is really not a good idea. Forums are for dialogues, not monologues.

I suppose I felt that research published in Feb 2016 was hardly "known about that for ages". Still, you know better.

And your "If you don't want to discuss it and learn in the process then posting to a forum is really not a good idea." quite unnecessary. Of course I want to learn (from people whose opinions and knowledge I trust). However, just posting a link with a bit of background on what it was about seems to have invoked "I know better", "old stuff known about for years". Maybe you'd be better off telling the researchers that their Feb 2016 paper was "known about for years".

And whilst I contribute and participate of a number of different forums, this is quite an unbelievable reaction to something posted that others might have found interesting. So again, why would I bother to post things others might find interesting (and I consider Feb 2016 published research recent) when all I get is this grief. You can drive people away.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:And your "If you don't want to discuss it and learn in the process then posting to a forum is really not a good idea." quite unnecessary. Of course I want to learn (from people whose opinions and knowledge I trust). However, just posting a link with a bit of background on what it was about seems to have invoked "I know better", "old stuff known about for years". Maybe you'd be better off telling the researchers that their Feb 2016 paper was "known about for years".

But that's not what I said. Naked singularities and their implications for General Relativity have been known about for decades. There is a good review of the history of naked singularities in Scientific American in 2013 (three years before the paper you highlighted). The classical route to a naked singularity is a rotating collapse in the four dimensions of space-time. What this new paper has explored is what-if scenarios of collapses in higher dimensions than four and it found there is a scenario that can create naked singularities if the collapse takes place in 5 or higher dimensions. Whether there is any reality to that scenario is, unlike rotating collapses, unknown because we don't know whether there are more dimensions than four although string and M-theories do propose there are. The probable resolution of the issue will most likely come when someone manages to successfully merge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics for which Loop Quantum Gravity is the leading contender.

Of course I and Scientific American could be arrogantly talking out of our backsides but there is the possibility we both do know what we are talking about that you might like to consider.

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:And your "If you don't want to discuss it and learn in the process then posting to a forum is really not a good idea." quite unnecessary. Of course I want to learn (from people whose opinions and knowledge I trust). However, just posting a link with a bit of background on what it was about seems to have invoked "I know better", "old stuff known about for years". Maybe you'd be better off telling the researchers that their Feb 2016 paper was "known about for years".

But that's not what I said. Naked singularities and their implications for General Relativity have been known about for decades. There is a good review of the history of naked singularities in Scientific American in 2013 (three years before the paper you highlighted). The classical route to a naked singularity is a rotating collapse in the four dimensions of space-time. What this new paper has explored is what-if scenarios of collapses in higher dimensions than four and it found there is a scenario that can create naked singularities if the collapse takes place in 5 or higher dimensions. Whether there is any reality to that scenario is, unlike rotating collapses, unknown because we don't know whether there are more dimensions than four although string and M-theories do propose there are. The probable resolution of the issue will most likely come when someone manages to successfully merge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics for which Loop Quantum Gravity is the leading contender.

Of course I and Scientific American could be arrogantly talking out of our backsides but there is the possibility we both do know what we are talking about that you might like to consider.

God. Grrrrr. I didn't highlight any paper. I pointed people to a section of a podcast I though people might find interesting - and it seems to have "sparked you off" (and I'm beyond sick of it).

I was quickly trying to write a brief summary to give people an idea what the section of the podcast was about. Clearly it was inadequate for you. And it's not called "having a discussion" (what you are doing). I really don't care if you liked it or not. It's worked - your continual sniping. Bye.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:I pointed people to a section of a podcast I though people might find interesting - and it seems to have "sparked you off" (and I'm beyond sick of it).

I found it interesting, cheers.

I am not going through it all but I will answer the first thing on page 3 about Foucault's pendulum (it is being claimed to prove Earth rotates).

Firstly this is a pendulum OK, "a pendulum". It isn't "Foucault's" pendulum, it is just a weight on a rope. It is called "Foucault's pendulum" so people can repeat it to each other and it sounds all posh. A bit like how shell shock became "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" and endlessly on, flowery language often works on people.

The second thing is a pendulum swinging in such a way will precess on a motionless Earth because of flaws at its pivot point. Also, they never setup several pendulums in the same room, if they did they wouldn't precess the same, but we can't have people finding that out.

The third thing is, if Earth were moving around in space like a waltzer (the mechanics of it dictate an average speed change of 1 MPH in 22 seconds over 12 hours at the equator from 12AM to 12PM as you "waltzer" around on the surface at varying speeds) this means a pendulum could actually be left hanging up still and you could come back to it in several hours to see it moving a little bit all by itself.

The fourth thing is on a rotating Earth, a pendulum set swinging wouldn't precess because the rope, the weight, the ceiling, the walls of the room and the room and the Earth are all one thing, so this means the entire apparatus is all in the same frame of reference, meaning it actually shouldn't precess - but does. The reason it does is flaws at the pivot point and this is why they say make the pendulum three stories high (because it helps to make it precess lol, it is a hoax, it doesn't prove Earth is rotating, it actually proves due to the lack of movement that Earth cannot be moving at a rate of 1 MPH of speedup or slowdown every 22 seconds at the equator, because this would make a still pendulum move after several hours with those speed changes - which aren't there).

I am not getting into a debate about this because I have already heard every answer and when you take away all the red herrings people throw in (like its gravity, its centrifugal force, its centripetal force, or asking what it is in reference to etc) no one has any answer to this. It is in reference to a 0 MPH reference point OK, lets assume the sun moves at 0 MPH for the purposes of this, or do you really WANT to start also adding onto this the absurd notion that all of this is flying around the galaxy at 500,000 MPH and all of that is also shooting off the back of a big bang at 667,000,000 MPH?

Do you really want to start including that as well?!

I am only going off the rotation at 1,000 MPH and the orbit at 67,000 MPH. So then at 12AM midnight at the equator you have to be moving at 68,000 MPH and at 12PM noon in the same spot, you have to be moving at 66,000 MPH.

Don't blame me/attack me/laugh at me/post Gillian Anderson pics / post XKCD cartoons, because none of that actually answers what I am asking! People doing that belong in a playground. People do anything to avoid answering it, including "where's your tinfoil hat" (when I am asking a factual thing) or "you're trolling". Thats the best one, simply "you're trolling" since it then means they don't have to answer one single thing.

Anyone can say that... I mean anyone can say "this guy is trolling" whether they are or aren't, no one even understands the mechanics or physics of it to know what I am talking about. I have even asked people with physics degrees and just got a stupid red herring of an answer.

Denying that a waltzer has speed changes on the outer (or inner) wall of the extremity, when it is orbiting on a platform, is about the biggest crock of nonsense I have ever heard anyone try to scam me with! So a waltzer DOES have speed changes and "wobs around" but when Earth moves in that exact same way, abracadabra you can't feel the 1 MPH speed change over 22 seconds and it can't even be detected with an instrument well whoopee... it isn't TRUE then is it, quit carrying on as though it is a factual thing, how can anyone carry it on knowing this?!

You can't answer how we can see any of the same stars after 6 months at the equator either, if we were 180 degrees facing the other way, not one single star we saw 6 months back could be viewable, yet we do see some of the same stars, oops! That can't happen, this is not debatable OK this can't happen on a spinning ball Earth.

I don't create the laws of physics and mechanics and those laws dictate that a speed change needs to be at the surface. Since Earth isn't moving and we have nothing of the sort happening, it is provable that the spinning ball thesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Its all down to whether you bother to scrutinize it, or just believe everything you are told.

The answer is "You'll just have to believe in magic" which of course, I am going to scoff at. No you won't get me to believe this stuff, not unless there's proof.

As far as gravity waves go, they were debunked the day after they were announced and their announcement coincided with people quoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson as saying "We have yet to detect a gravity wave". DeGrasse Tyson also said in the past something like "We have got the top people working on it". Good luck with that because gravity ain't even there.

You can look back through history at this happening, for example dinosaurs appeared out of nowhere in the 1800s to bolster Darwin's theory of evolution (still a theory 150 years later). Darwin himself said if no proof comes along you might as well scrap his theory. The man himself is being ignored. All the top scientists say these things and get ignored. Tyson said "No one has discovered a gravity wave" and people choose to think whatever they want. The dinosaurs one is quite an obvious one since not one single ancient civilization recorded the discovery of one single skeleton or fossil in thousands of years. All of a sudden in the 1800s they appeared by magic!

Try to go see a dinosaur exhibit, they are never open even when there is one somewhere, its quite amazing that they continue to pull this stuff off but no one cares, most will argue until they are blue in the face the Earth is a spinning ball, dinosaurs existed and so on, without really knowing why it is that way, just that "it is that way and that's the end of it".

Try verifying it though and by the way confirmation bias isn't allowed, I mean verify it, you won't be able to... and with that being the case you have to at least question why that is. These things could be proven in a second if they were true, there wouldn't be a debate about it and DeGrasse Tyson doing rap songs about it.

B.O.B. did a rap about flat Earth, DeGrasse Tyson did a rap and it even got others doing their own rap... get "Eric Dubay - Once You Go Flat Rap" on, can't link to it because it has swearing. What next, "DJ Albert Lyingstein and MC Isaac Nuisance"

This stuff isn't going away and posting Gillian Anderson pics, XKCD cartoons and quoting Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" isn't debunking anything. Its always easier to laugh at something than to look/think into it.

Manc33 wrote:Try to go see a dinosaur exhibit, they are never open even when there is one somewhere

I've been to several. My kids even got to feed a dinosaur in Edinburgh.

Vorpal wrote:

Manc33 wrote:Try to go see a dinosaur exhibit, they are never open even when there is one somewhere

I've been to several. My kids even got to feed a dinosaur in Edinburgh.

Right, a crocodile? No wrong answer, an alligator.

Here's a funny one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHNDAMfA0s

The scientist guy goes all gangster on him lol, these people aren't scientists, they are criminals.

"The amount of money has nothing to do with it" - his own words.

Manc33, what proportion of (say) western Europeans do you think would have to be "in the know" of one or more of your conspiracies if your views were correct?