For theEngineer

  • 95 Replies
  • 10759 Views
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2007, 01:50:35 PM »
Hawking Radiation does not arise from within the event horizon as you stated.
*puts on Divito cap*
Why are you saying he/she stated this?! I don't see any statements made by this individual making this claim.   ::)

Unfortunately it was stated.

sharkzf6Fails = sharkzf6Fails + 1;

I won't believe it until I see it in a quote box.

Seriously, I didn't say it!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2007, 02:11:54 PM »
So, if hawking radiation forms outside the event horizon to float away, how does information escape the black hole? Obviously it wasn't in the black hole to start with.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Engineer
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2007, 02:54:01 PM »
Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Engineer
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2007, 03:15:00 PM »
Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
I don't see the term "Hawking Radiation" anywhere in this statement. In fact, it was you, Engineer, who made the assumption that andrews was referring to this theoretical phenomena. Read through the posts again...   ???
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Engineer
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2007, 04:01:26 PM »
Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
I don't see the term "Hawking Radiation" anywhere in this statement. In fact, it was you, Engineer, who made the assumption that andrews was referring to this theoretical phenomena. Read through the posts again...   ???
Considering andrews said he's talking about Hawking Radiation, it's not really an assumption that had to be made.
OMG!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Engineer
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2007, 04:03:13 PM »
I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

Just to clarify for the slower among us (sharkzf6).  Maybe you should read through the posts again...
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Engineer
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2007, 05:57:05 PM »
I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think[.b] what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

Just to clarify for the slower among us (sharkzf6).  Maybe you should read through the posts again...

I think that my professor, who is an expert in the area, was talking about Hawking Radiation. The fact that I am not an expert is irrelevant here: none of you have given any inclination that you are experts in the area, and I have a verycredible source for my proposition. Of course nobody can give any evidence against the possibility (not claim) that I am making...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2007, 06:03:04 PM »
Don't worry about it.  I was just pointing out that you did, in fact, state that you were talking about Hawking Radiation.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2007, 06:05:26 PM »
Don't worry about it.  I was just pointing out that you did, in fact, state that you were talking about Hawking Radiation.

It's not you I'm worried about :) TheEngineer does the cute little thing of putting words in my mouth and then getting me all angry about it and stuff. He also disagrees with many experts in their respective fields...

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Engineer
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2007, 10:14:18 PM »
Engineer,
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
I don't see the term "Hawking Radiation" anywhere in this statement. In fact, it was you, Engineer, who made the assumption that andrews was referring to this theoretical phenomena. Read through the posts again...   ???
Considering andrews said he's talking about Hawking Radiation, it's not really an assumption that had to be made.
I see. Look, I'm just playing the same game you idiots play...the word game. He never stated (verbatim) what the demigod "The Engineer” assumed...it really is that simple.
You are still a dumbass...   ???
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Engineer
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2007, 10:18:13 PM »
I am by no means an expert in this area, but a professor of mine, who does happen to be an expert in the area, tells me that it is possible for black holes to send information. I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation, which somebody commented on above in this thread.

Just to clarify for the slower among us (sharkzf6).  Maybe you should read through the posts again...
Another hypocrite speaks out. As I stated in the other post to CC, aka dumbass, I’m only playing the same game you idiots play…
The only moron left to hear from on this is Divito…  ???
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Engineer
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2007, 12:55:04 AM »
It's not you I'm worried about :) TheEngineer does the cute little thing of putting words in my mouth and then getting me all angry about it and stuff.
(I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
...
I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation
So...what words did I put in your mouth?

Quote
He also disagrees with many experts in their respective fields...
What experts did I disagree with?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Engineer
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2007, 03:48:55 AM »
It's not you I'm worried about :) TheEngineer does the cute little thing of putting words in my mouth and then getting me all angry about it and stuff.
(I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
...
I think what he is talking about is Hawking Radiation
So...what words did I put in your mouth?

That I stated that Hawkings Radiation allows us to see inside black holes.

Quote
He also disagrees with many experts in their respective fields...
What experts did I disagree with?
Stephen Hawking

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Engineer
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2007, 05:09:23 AM »
The only moron left to hear from on this is Divito…  ???

Nice, here I am!

As for the what all the bickering is about, TheEngineer assumed he was referring to Hawking Radiation, which doesn't come from within the event horizon. The similarity to which andrews posted could have been a simple misunderstanding and TheEngineer took it as such.

"Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles."

Unless someone can point out the theory andrews is talking about where information can come from within the event horizon, TheEngineer's assumption will be correct and all of your whining will have been useless.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Engineer
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2007, 06:29:24 AM »
From what I understand from your previous post, you are saying that what I say is not true. (I'm talking about how physicists now believe that black holes may be able to send information from within the event horizon.)
Yes, I am saying this is not true.


July 21, 2004:
Quote from: Stephen Hawkings
It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information out of the black hole.  This explains how a black hole can form, and then give out the information about what is inside it, while remaining topologically trivial.
Stephen Hawkings thinks otherwise. See
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/hawkingdublin.txt
for the full text. Comment?


Please read this. I am stating that Stephen Hawking is stating that information can be given out from inside the event horizon. There is a link to the page where he says this.

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Engineer
« Reply #75 on: July 25, 2007, 07:34:28 AM »
The only moron left to hear from on this is Divito…  ???

Nice, here I am!

As for the what all the bickering is about, TheEngineer assumed he was referring to Hawking Radiation, which doesn't come from within the event horizon. The similarity to which andrews posted could have been a simple misunderstanding and TheEngineer took it as such.

"Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles."

Unless someone can point out the theory andrews is talking about where information can come from within the event horizon, TheEngineer's assumption will be correct and all of your whining will have been useless.
Ah...the circle is complete, the town crier chimes in...
Sorry Divito, I don't agree with your statement regarding TheEngineer's assumption. The reason: the same as when people like you nit pick other's posts on this forum using word games, spell checkers and grammar rules. There doesn't need to be any substance or evidence to an argument/debate on this forum...something I learned quickly after reading several threads...
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #76 on: July 25, 2007, 07:47:22 AM »
Disagree all you want, shark, that doesn't make you right.  Anyone coming to this thread can look back and see that andrews was, indeed, talking about hawking radiation coming out of the event horizon. 

You just don't like me or anyone who agrees with me or defends me.  I've seen this pattern, and it's really rather childish.
OMG!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Engineer
« Reply #77 on: July 25, 2007, 11:51:37 AM »
Ah...the circle is complete, the town crier chimes in...
Sorry Divito, I don't agree with your statement regarding TheEngineer's assumption. The reason: the same as when people like you nit pick other's posts on this forum using word games, spell checkers and grammar rules. There doesn't need to be any substance or evidence to an argument/debate on this forum...something I learned quickly after reading several threads...

Yes, I nit-pick when people feel the need to omit basic rules of a language. The relevance of that to this present subject you were arguing is where?

And you're right, an argument doesn't need to have any substance or evidence. It would be opinionated anyways.

It still remains, that andrews stated something in which was pretty much Hawking Radiation minus the actually coming from within part, which was taken as a simple misunderstanding. So again, unless someone knows a theory by which something can come out from within the event horizon, TheEngineer was correct in his assumption and you all wasted your time.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #78 on: July 25, 2007, 12:57:41 PM »
Disagree all you want, shark, that doesn't make you right.  Anyone coming to this thread can look back and see that andrews was, indeed, talking about hawking radiation coming out of the event horizon. 

You just don't like me or anyone who agrees with me or defends me.  I've seen this pattern, and it's really rather childish.
My God! Are you a child?! Do you believe I care whether you think I'm right? (I assume you mean correct). This isn't about right or wrong man. Recommendation to CC, aka dumbass, grow up fella...   ???
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Engineer
« Reply #79 on: July 25, 2007, 01:01:06 PM »
Ah...the circle is complete, the town crier chimes in...
Sorry Divito, I don't agree with your statement regarding TheEngineer's assumption. The reason: the same as when people like you nit pick other's posts on this forum using word games, spell checkers and grammar rules. There doesn't need to be any substance or evidence to an argument/debate on this forum...something I learned quickly after reading several threads...

Yes, I nit-pick when people feel the need to omit basic rules of a language. The relevance of that to this present subject you were arguing is where?

And you're right, an argument doesn't need to have any substance or evidence. It would be opinionated anyways.

It still remains, that andrews stated something in which was pretty much Hawking Radiation minus the actually coming from within part, which was taken as a simple misunderstanding. So again, unless someone knows a theory by which something can come out from within the event horizon, TheEngineer was correct in his assumption and you all wasted your time.
And you...WTF is your problem?! Again, I don't give a shit what you think...I'll post my opinion, as you do, without regard to your take on it...   8)
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #80 on: July 25, 2007, 01:06:49 PM »
For not caring what they think you sure seemed to get worked up about it...
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Engineer
« Reply #81 on: July 25, 2007, 01:08:51 PM »
And you...WTF is your problem?! Again, I don't give a shit what you think...I'll post my opinion, as you do, without regard to your take on it...   8)

Oh, well I was brought into this whole discussion because I was called a moron and I was the only one of "them" left. I never said you had to care about what I thought, and I don't expect you to. I don't see the problem.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Engineer
« Reply #82 on: July 25, 2007, 01:20:29 PM »
Ah...the circle is complete, the town crier chimes in...
Sorry Divito, I don't agree with your statement regarding TheEngineer's assumption. The reason: the same as when people like you nit pick other's posts on this forum using word games, spell checkers and grammar rules. There doesn't need to be any substance or evidence to an argument/debate on this forum...something I learned quickly after reading several threads...

... unless someone knows a theory by which something can come out from within the event horizon

Stephen Hawking does....

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #83 on: July 25, 2007, 01:23:11 PM »
My God! Are you a child?! Do you believe I care whether you think I'm right? (I assume you mean correct). This isn't about right or wrong man. Recommendation to CC, aka dumbass, grow up fella...   ???

First:  I never called you a child, nor did I ask you if you're a child.  I merely said that your behavior is childish.

Second:  You do seem to care, as you're going to great lengths to stay on this forum and tell me what a dumbass I am.

Third:  I thought you said my name should be Paradox.
OMG!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Engineer
« Reply #84 on: July 25, 2007, 01:33:28 PM »
Stephen Hawking does....

True, upon reading about it, he does think so. The information is useless though and more so, it's pure speculation.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Engineer
« Reply #85 on: July 25, 2007, 01:48:03 PM »
Stephen Hawking does....

True, upon reading about it, he does think so. The information is useless though and more so, it's pure speculation.

Yup, and I think this is the best we can do at this stage. But if one of the leading experts suspect that something is possible, it's hard to argue that it is impossible.

Thanks for reading it!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #86 on: July 25, 2007, 02:11:42 PM »
Hawking Radiation originates from quantum fluctuations.  These fluctuations 'borrow' energy from the universe and spawn a particle/anti particle pair.  Normally, this pair would quickly annihilate each other, retuning the energy to the universe, thus preserving conservation of energy.  However, when these pairs pop into existence straddling the event horizon, one will be unable to escape, and the other will not be able to annihilate and return its energy.  For conservation of energy to remain, the particle that escapes must become a 'real' particle, thus it has positive energy, and the particle that is trapped in the black hole must have negative energy.  This negative energy thus reduces the total energy of the black hole.  The particle that escapes would appear to have been emitted by the black hole as the black hole lost energy.  Now, this particle carries with it information entangled in its own state as to the state of the other particle that fell into the black hole.  If the 'real' particle was an 'up', then we can assume the anti particle was a 'down' state. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #87 on: July 25, 2007, 02:17:06 PM »
Hawking Radiation originates from quantum fluctuations.  These fluctuations 'borrow' energy from the universe and spawn a particle/anti particle pair.  Normally, this pair would quickly annihilate each other, retuning the energy to the universe, thus preserving conservation of energy.  However, when these pairs pop into existence straddling the event horizon, one will be unable to escape, and the other will not be able to annihilate and return its energy.  For conservation of energy to remain, the particle that escapes must become a 'real' particle, thus it has positive energy, and the particle that is trapped in the black hole must have negative energy.  This negative energy thus reduces the total energy of the black hole.  The particle that escapes would appear to have been emitted by the black hole as the black hole lost energy.  Now, this particle carries with it information entangled in its own state as to the state of the other particle that fell into the black hole.  If the 'real' particle was an 'up', then we can assume the anti particle was a 'down' state. 

Interesting.

What kind of reading do you do into this stuff? The only thing I read on physics was fluffy pop-science stuff (IE. A Brief History of Time). Although I'm taking a GR course in the winter, which will talk a lot about the geometry of black holes/the universe.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #88 on: July 25, 2007, 02:24:16 PM »
I've read A Brief History of Time as well as The Elegant Universe.  I find theoretical physics quite fascinating, so I do quite a bit of further reading on the subject.

But anyway, that's why I said it was not from within the black hole, as the particle is released from outside the event horizon.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: For theEngineer
« Reply #89 on: July 25, 2007, 02:40:01 PM »
I've read A Brief History of Time as well as The Elegant Universe.  I find theoretical physics quite fascinating, so I do quite a bit of further reading on the subject.

But anyway, that's why I said it was not from within the black hole, as the particle is released from outside the event horizon.

I started reading math books before I got to The Elegant Universe. It might come back in a roundabout way someday when I decide to read more physics. Until then, I'm learning algebra :)

While the particle is released from outside the event horizon, can it still give information about the inside?