@Lou

Quote:

Quote: From: Brian K You asserted a possible reason. This neither demonstrated the excuse as true nor of Nibiru actually existing. At the same time we still have Nibiru believers that continue to claim a false worldwide conspiracy to cover up Nibiru. From: Lou It's the actual reason but you do enjoy living in denial of facts that contradict your view of reality.

The problem here is what you see as a fact is not a fact.

Nibiru has never been discovered, that's a fact. Why an unknown is an unknown is a guess. The other fact is no one can determine if your guess is right, or wrong, until we discover Nibiru and know it's properties.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Jan-2013 at 04:13 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I've explained many times how insulting your posting style is.

Wow digging into nuance to get a deeper understanding is 'insulting'? No Lou that's called communication. It's definitely no where akin to calling people nimrods or retarded.

Quote:

GR was never proven right...and actually proven wrong

Wow, guess you don't know much about scientific history of gravity. Perhaps you should go back and read the evidence which I provided and you argued that you can't be bothered to read. One easy to read up on is how Newtonian Gravity would drive Mercury into the Sun. The need was to guess another planet, Vulcan, existed to keep Mercury in it's orbit. Then how Vulcan was never found but GR provided the explanation and it's predictions matched the evidence. So indeed there is much proven right about GR.

Quote:

I see you're joining the nimrod club of blanket statements without references

We're talking if Gluons have been evidenced or not. We can both read the scientific experiments and evidence built. Scientists and I disagree with you. I don't know if there is a way to come to an agreement here so it's fair to leave our assertions and if the reader cares they can decide for themselves.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model It's so amusing to see you stand by both the blundered theory of general relativity and the standard model.

With the exception of the Graviton the Standard Model has been evidenced. What my "faith" says is clear. We've clear evidence the Standard Model works. We've evidence that the Standard Model is short of everything. There are various postulates at what lies further out. We need better empirical evidence before we settle on which of the various postulates are a better alignment of reality.

What you claim is EM is the answer to everything. But, you don't provide the empirical evidence. You have only postulated this and assumed it to be true.

Quote:

Again taking a page out of the nimrodic method for making claims without references that are soley based on faith.

You lie again!? (No surprise really.) My statement was a quick summary of that knowledge about the proton which has been given in recent posts, see Nimrod's and my conversation, and past in the thread. The Schwarzschild Proton predictions in no way align with the evidence. They are disproven. Feyman discusses how failure to match evidence works.

@Niolator

Quote:

A black hole with the mass of, say a mountain, would have a lot smaller event horizon and therefore a lot less Hawking radiation would form, or have I misunderstood things?

One of the counter-intuitive things about black holes that confuses people like Lou is the fact that as the black hole shrinks, and its mass and radius reduce, it causes an increase in Hawking radiation, not a reduction.
In my post #181 I showed the equation used to calculate the amount of Hawking radiation given off a black hole. The mass I used to determine the output of the "Scwartzchild proton" (885,000,000 tonnes) was the mass that had a Scwartzchild radius matching that of the known radius of a proton. The estimated mass of Mount Everest is 6,399,000,000,000 tonnes.
A black hole with the mass of Everest would emit approximately 500kW, so you would really need a slightly smaller mountain to get a usable amount of energy, but not too small as the energy increases quite rapidly as the black holes shrinkage accelerates.
The other thing that Lou misses is that as the Scwartzchild radius reduces, the density of the black hole increases and the gravity gradient increases, which means that you can pass close to the event horizon of a supermassive black hole with impunity as long as you do not actually cross the event horizon. Try the same thing with a micro black hole of approximately solar mass and you will be spaghettified as you approach.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Niolator

Quote:

I see you are discussion Hawking radiation. I just read an article were they proposed a starship engine with a black hole as the source for propulsion. It would be a miniature black hole and when the engine started it would be "like a new star lit over Earth". The source of the power would be Hawking radiation.

How'd they move the Black Hole? Did they capture it and store it somehow like one would gasoline in a tank? Or did not need to move it? For example perhaps one could use it externally as a source of power for a Solar Sail?

@BrianK

Well, the black hole itself wouldn't be very huge to provide a whole lot of energy, so where exactly is the problem of moving it?

I can see that keeping it contained would be tricky, as you need to make sure it cannot feed on any mass except what you give it.

Some more on it:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10439

Interestingly enough, this is one of those "limitless energy" ideas that I doubt Lou would jump on to

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

More nimrodic rhetoric and "claims" without references...

The only one who routinely makes unreferenced claims is yourself. I will admit that I did not put up a link to the court transcripts of Bernie Madoffs case, but I assumed that you knew enough about what was actually happening in the world outside your closed loop conspiracy fantasy to realise that Madoff had been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme. Likewise, Eric von Daniken was convicted of fraud in 1967, and has been caught peddling lies since. Haramein also lied in his Egyptological fantasies in order to make his Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals appear credible.

Quote:

I provided the links....

When and where? You keep making this claim but like all of your claims, it is unreferenced, unsupported, and untrue

Quote:

Oh really? When was the last time you merged 2 black holes? Oh wait, are you accepting unproved THEORY as FACT again?

I am quoting theories that, unlike your favourite Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals, match observations made and recorded by independent scientists. The reason that GR has been discovered to have discrepancies is because it makes sufficiently accurate predictions that differences can be noticed. This is totally unlike Harameins C. R. A. P that is supported by such flawed mathematics and inaccurate arithmetic that it is only a surprise that he knows which way is up.

Quote:

Oh is that more empty claims without a reference? So basically, you accept one FLAWED theory over an unproved one.

Yes I do accept GR over all of your unproved fantasies. The reason is that the other "theories" is as you state, they are unproven. I could "theorise" that the ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference is 42, but you would still be better off and get a more accurate result if you stuck to the ancient approximation of 22/7. The flawed value of 3.142857 is better than the unproven theory of 42.

Quote:

Why do you persist in naming yourself appropriately?

I have already posted an explanation. The fact that you lack the intellect to understand the english language is not my problem.

Quote:

Like sands thru the hourglass so is the source of our power! http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/kerosene-lamps-face-gravity-powered-usurper

Not exactly a new technology. I have an antique clock that uses the same power source.

Last edited by Nimrod on 16-Jan-2013 at 07:55 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@olegil

Quote:

Well, the black hole itself wouldn't be very huge to provide a whole lot of energy, so where exactly is the problem of moving it? I can see that keeping it contained would be tricky, as you need to make sure it cannot feed on any mass except what you give it.

(BTW interesting thought experiment.)

Read the page. They kind of skip over that step and say we 'attach it to a parabolic mirror'. We'd have to somehow capture a Black Hole and contain it in a manner that doesn't eat the container. If the container was eaten by the fuel we'd lose the fuel.

In this system we'd need to move the mass of the Black Hole, the mass that the Black Hole is eating, and the mass of the starship. At the same time we'd somehow need to provide energy to the containment field that would drag the Black Hole along with us on the journey.

Thought of another potential problem -
"The resulting million-tonne black hole would be about the size of an atomic nucleus" -- A million ton Black Hole wouldn't cut it. The reason is Hawking Radiation is the dissipation of the Black Hole itself. A Black Hole dissipates into the universe. The BH must be hotter than the medium in which it resides. That medium, space, does have a temperature - we call it the cosmic background radiation. Turns out a million-tonne size BH would produce less energy than the cosmic background and thus couldn't dissipate.

( Patience please, I did this quickly on paper so it may actually be a bit off but it's close enough for illustrations. ) It appears to get above the cosmic background radiation one would need a mass of greater than 10^20kg. For example, we'd have to collapse something a bit smaller than Earth's moon into a Black Hole To illustrate the difference the result of using the required mass to get above the cosmic background radiation would result in a 1/11th mm sized Black Hole. Much, much larger than an atomic nucleus. (Again apologies if I'm a bit off there but with the scale difference it illustrates the point.)

Quote:

Interestingly enough, this is one of those "limitless energy" ideas that I doubt Lou would jump on to

As Hawking Radiation is released the Black Hole is decreasing it's lifespan. Again the atomic sized Black Hole would basically do nothing as it wouldn't leak radiation into the universe. The 1/11th sized Black Hole would have a finite lifespan shorter than the universe. One could, in theory use a Black Hole that has a lifespan of more than the remainder of the universe itself to accommodate an unlimited lifespan of the power source.

Thanks - again interesting thought experiments.

@BrianK

Quote:

A million ton Black Hole wouldn't cut it. The reason is Hawking Radiation is the dissipation of the Black Hole itself. A Black Hole dissipates into the universe. The BH must be hotter than the medium in which it resides. That medium, space, does have a temperature - we call it the cosmic background radiation. Turns out a million-tonne size BH would produce less energy than the cosmic background and thus couldn't dissipate.

Eh, surely this cannot be right? The bigger the black hole, the less radiation. Inputting 1e6 tons in the hawking radiation calculator ( http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ ) gives me 1.227203e+14K and 3.563442e+14W. Surely the background radiation isn't THAT hot

I tried your 1e20 and got 1227K, 2.7K would be 4.545197e+22 kg

All according to the online calculator, that is.

Last edited by olegil on 16-Jan-2013 at 09:45 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Nimrod

Thank for the clarification.

@BrianK

I think they meant to create the black hole in orbit and build the starship around it. It would work as the engine itself and be situated inside a nozzle. The Hawking radiation would bounce of the walls of the nozzle and push the craft forward. I didn't quite get how they would anchor the black hole in the nozzle.

edit: Wrong @

Last edited by Niolator on 17-Jan-2013 at 07:18 AM.

@olegil

Quote:

Eh, surely this cannot be right? The bigger the black hole, the less radiation

What?! The internet has calculators instead of me dusting off my 20 year old pointers in my brain? (Kidding.) Don't have time to readjust this moment. I'll point you here for the maths. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation Also, don't forget too small with insufficient energy will pop out of existence into a gamma-ray burst. Then what a spaceship floating around full of Hulks?!

Update: Yes thanks for the pages for review. I did have that reversed. Black Holes that are larger release less, or no radiation. We'd need a small one and a way to grab onto it to power a ship. And, of course a size large enough it doesn't collapse during the journey or that would be bad.

Gain thanks for the mental exercise.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jan-2013 at 01:47 AM.

@BrianK

the 1 million ton black hole would have a lifetime of 8.407183e+10 seconds (edit: 1224 years, no point in being deliberately anal about units), so essentially we shouldn't need to feed it for a long time after grabbing onto it

The lifetime there is calculated directly from the mass loss, but doesn't seem to take into account the increased output as the mass decreases. But it hints at not needing to feed it for quite some time.

But yes, it's problematic how it either blows up because it's become too small or it sucks all life in because it's become too big

On the other hand, if you design the system right, you could make it so that you can handle quite a lot more power than would be output in the beginning. You have hundreds of years of liefetime of the device before output rises significantly, ant the last 10000 tons evaporate in 1 day (well, 0.9730536 days but you get the point) so before that you swap it out and dump the old one into space.

By then the output is up to 3.563442e+18, requiring a safety factor of 10000 in the design. If you had a 100 million times safety factor built in you would be ok up to the last 0.084 seconds and let's be honest, by this time you've found an enemy to "nuke" anyway

So while there are technical difficulties, the idea isn't completely far-fetched based on current understanding of black holes. Ok, so how to make and grab the black hole is a bit of a wild guess at the moment, but it's not like anyone has invested anything yet

Last edited by olegil on 17-Jan-2013 at 10:01 AM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

You all seem to take Hawking radiation as a fact but it isn't really proven to exist, right? The only way to prove it would be direct measurements of a black hole, I assume a miniature black hole would be preferable.

@Niolator

You are right we do not have much evidence of a Black Hole. We're playing with what the math postulates. So claiming anything about a Black Hole is a reality is nothing more than a hedged bet. For example, Lou tried to say all Black Holes spin when we don't even have evidence of a single Black Hole and how that one works. We don't even have that level of detail on a single Black Hole.

We did create a couple short lived analogs of Black Holes, I think sound was used. They claimed to see Hawking Radiation effects. However, it was too short lived and is unduplicated for any sort of strong confirmation of this indirect testing method.

@BrianK

What I meant was just regarding the radiation. I think black holes have been proven indirectly by X-Ray telescopes on satellites (among other tools). It would be very hard to explain some phenomena not involving a black hole.

eiti: plural

Last edited by Niolator on 17-Jan-2013 at 03:27 PM.

@Niolator

Black Holes are indeed thought to be observed. What has not yet been observed is the properties of those objects, outside an estimated size. We lack any qualitative evidence or analysis of properties of Black Holes. One might make an analogy to photography. There's a difference in detail between a bird that's 2 miles away shot by camera in a 320x200 resolution AND a bird that's 2 feet away shot by a camera in a 3560x2160 resolution. In one case we know the bird is there. In the other case we can tell the colors of each feather.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jan-2013 at 04:00 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: [quote] From: Brian K You asserted a possible reason. This neither demonstrated the excuse as true nor of Nibiru actually existing. At the same time we still have Nibiru believers that continue to claim a false worldwide conspiracy to cover up Nibiru. Quote: From: Lou It's the actual reason but you do enjoy living in denial of facts that contradict your view of reality. The problem here is what you see as a fact is not a fact. Nibiru has never been discovered, that's a fact. Why an unknown is an unknown is a guess. The other fact is no one can determine if your guess is right, or wrong, until we discover Nibiru and know it's properties.

The problem is you DENY as FACT where as I leave it as open for possibility. Must you twist everything?

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2013 at 05:27 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou [quote] [quote] From: Brian K You asserted a possible reason. This neither demonstrated the excuse as true nor of Nibiru actually existing. At the same time we still have Nibiru believers that continue to claim a false worldwide conspiracy to cover up Nibiru. From: Lou It's the actual reason but you do enjoy living in denial of facts that contradict your view of reality.

The problem here is what you see as a fact is not a fact.

Nibiru has never been discovered, that's a fact. Why an unknown is an unknown is a guess. The other fact is no one can determine if your guess is right, or wrong, until we discover Nibiru and know it's properties.
[/quote]
The problem is you DENY as FACT where as I leave it as open for possibility. Must you twist everything?[/quote]

(See how your demand to quote everything mucks up because this board doesn't handle all those embedded. So trying to appease Lou results in worse readability compared to following the threaded conversation.)


The problem here is you are lying again. I've never said Nibiru doesn't exist. I stated Nibiru has never been discovered. My faith is open to anything existing. All that needs to be done is step forward with the evidence.

And I'll even accept your excuse as to why Nibiru hasn't been discovered. But again you need to evidence it! You can't evidence it without proving Nibiru in the first place.

Going back to your first statement above -- again that was a lie as nothing I said denied any existing facts.

Also, I think you are underselling your position. You're not just open to Nibiru existing. You've written many times on how it does indeed exist.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jan-2013 at 05:13 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I've explained many times how insulting your posting style is. Wow digging into nuance to get a deeper understanding is 'insulting'? No Lou that's called communication. It's definitely no where akin to calling people nimrods or retarded.

Well, your "communication" sucks.

Quote:

Quote: GR was never proven right...and actually proven wrong Wow, guess you don't know much about scientific history of gravity. Perhaps you should go back and read the evidence which I provided and you argued that you can't be bothered to read. One easy to read up on is how Newtonian Gravity would drive Mercury into the Sun. The need was to guess another planet, Vulcan, existed to keep Mercury in it's orbit. Then how Vulcan was never found but GR provided the explanation and it's predictions matched the evidence. So indeed there is much proven right about GR.

Just because Einstein's gravity was marginally better than Newton's doesn't make it absolute and correct. For reference, look at the expanding universe. There is indeed much proven 'good enough for local space' about Einstein's GR, but in fact is demonstratably wrong for not-so-local-space.

Quote:

Quote: I see you're joining the nimrod club of blanket statements without references We're talking if Gluons have been evidenced or not. We can both read the scientific experiments and evidence built. Scientists and I disagree with you. I don't know if there is a way to come to an agreement here so it's fair to leave our assertions and if the reader cares they can decide for themselves.

And here you still are trolling without a reference...

Quote:

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model It's so amusing to see you stand by both the blundered theory of general relativity and the standard model. With the exception of the Graviton the Standard Model has been evidenced. What my "faith" says is clear. We've clear evidence the Standard Model works. We've evidence that the Standard Model is short of everything. There are various postulates at what lies further out. We need better empirical evidence before we settle on which of the various postulates are a better alignment of reality.

"works good enough" for somethings...apparently you lack reading comprehension

Quote:

What you claim is EM is the answer to everything. But, you don't provide the empirical evidence. You have only postulated this and assumed it to be true.

Funny, I have provided something that unifies the quantum world with the marcroscopic one and you are here defending two stand-alone "theories" that don't jive well together which makes them both incomplete and wrong. You essentially are defending ignorance...but hey, you can't argue with an idiot.

Quote:

Quote: Again taking a page out of the nimrodic method for making claims without references that are soley based on faith. You lie again!? (No surprise really.) My statement was a quick summary of that knowledge about the proton which has been given in recent posts, see Nimrod's and my conversation, and past in the thread. The Schwarzschild Proton predictions in no way align with the evidence. They are disproven. Feyman discusses how failure to match evidence works.

And you both have failed logically. The proton is considered stable. If it was unstable and decaying then it wouldn't be a proton for long, would it? One way to attempt to disprove something is to introduce outside elements like you and nimrod like to do. That's one way to troll, I suppose...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Niolator Quote: A black hole with the mass of, say a mountain, would have a lot smaller event horizon and therefore a lot less Hawking radiation would form, or have I misunderstood things? One of the counter-intuitive things about black holes that confuses people like Lou is the fact that as the black hole shrinks, and its mass and radius reduce, it causes an increase in Hawking radiation, not a reduction. In my post #181 I showed the equation used to calculate the amount of Hawking radiation given off a black hole. The mass I used to determine the output of the "Scwartzchild proton" (885,000,000 tonnes) was the mass that had a Scwartzchild radius matching that of the known radius of a proton. The estimated mass of Mount Everest is 6,399,000,000,000 tonnes. A black hole with the mass of Everest would emit approximately 500kW, so you would really need a slightly smaller mountain to get a usable amount of energy, but not too small as the energy increases quite rapidly as the black holes shrinkage accelerates. The other thing that Lou misses is that as the Scwartzchild radius reduces, the density of the black hole increases and the gravity gradient increases, which means that you can pass close to the event horizon of a supermassive black hole with impunity as long as you do not actually cross the event horizon. Try the same thing with a micro black hole of approximately solar mass and you will be spaghettified as you approach.

One thing that will confuse a nimrod is that a proton is considered STABLE, neither shrinking nor growing. Apparently, common sense is lost on nimrods, but I suppose that goes without saying.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK Well, the black hole itself wouldn't be very huge to provide a whole lot of energy, so where exactly is the problem of moving it? I can see that keeping it contained would be tricky, as you need to make sure it cannot feed on any mass except what you give it. Some more on it: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10439 Interestingly enough, this is one of those "limitless energy" ideas that I doubt Lou would jump on to

I award you a "Mr. Twist" award for swapping 'limitless' with 'free'!