Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

billhinge

Members
  • Posts

    1,122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

298 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    suffolk

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Roy Kerr who discovered the metric for real rotating black holes disagrees with Penrose/Hawking on the existence of singularities in real black holes, 'a foundation built on sand'. No quantum gravity required
  2. Now mainstream ? If anyone knows then surely its the person who discovered the Kerr metric? https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841
  3. I taught myself the maths and physics of GR to tensor level from the standard grad level books ( beyond what I did at 3rd year BSc specialisation) I don't claim to be an expert but I know my Riemann tensor from my Ricci\Weyl tensor from my Ricci scalar, my covariant from my contravariant and now that I'm about to be semi retired I'm going back to study for a physics masters to enjoy it with a 'desire' to to do further study afterward if possible (I can afford to self fund if required) . No need to find a job at the end or get involved in the typical student social activities πŸ˜‰ I think criticism (I don't mean flat earth and other mystic woo woo) is an important part of science because it forces physicists to defend what they preach - they often disagree after all Do real physicists really have their feelings hurt if they are criticised on youtube?
  4. Yes I appreciate that, point is that there are still many mysteries to solve, we don't know everything and we may even have got some assumptions wrong? (not picking on anything specific)
  5. In radioactive decay the negative mass square is a consequence of conservation of momentum and energy of the resultant positron and neutrino (since thats its 'job') not a speed measurement. It isn't even an unusual result, there are some people who take this literally but most state that it is systematic error 'somewhere' since its 'obvious' that it cant be negative and there it must be positive. I make no claim for either viewpoint, my beef is that if there is systematic error then someone should identify where. The most successful standard model says neutrino mass = 0 and therefore must travel at c (but they can't since they oscillate).
  6. Whats to misunderstand? Plenty of articles of varying technicality in google , question is why. I always remember this one because I did a third year project involving this and I also measured a negative value https://www.google.com/search?q=negative+energy+squared+of+neutrino&oq=negative+energy+squared+of+neutrino&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg80gEMNjI0NTQwNzBqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  7. The energy squared (which is proportional to mass squared) of the neutrino is often measured to be negative in radioactive decay but within certain error and is taken as positive, it gets measured to be a negative number but there is just enough error in measurement that mass could be slightly positive by convention since imaginary mass doesn't exist.
  8. While looking for articles on Black Hole volumes I found this interesting post from Roy Kerr (discoverer of Kerr Black Hole metric), quite interesting for the science and the human factor, reputation and how untested assumption can become uncontested fact...(maybe?, personally I've seen a lot of that in my line of work πŸ˜‰ ) profile 'constructed the Kerr black hole metric, 1963. proved that the Penrose and Hawking singularity theorems are invalid, since their assumption that affine parameters cannot be bounded on a light ray is false.' https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-black-hole-look-like-from-inside-the-event-horizon 'If the body is stellar sized then it’s density will be roughly similar to that of a neutron star. If it is super duper sized then it is quite possible that the gravity will be earth like and so a ship could actually land on it. It could even take off again but will never be able to cross the inner horizon. incoming objects will be seen as they come in from the real world, no problem!' Also, surely all real Black Holes rotate so why do we talk about Schwarzschild BH's and their central singularity, shouldn't they all be Kerr BH's?
  9. Sounds like inconsistent semantics, I'm sure people can find many instances so I don't have to much of a problem β€œWhen I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, β€˜it means just what I choose it to mean β€” neither more nor less.’ I know what you are saying Yet we do say MOND Theory, String Theory, etc which hardly fit the above definition, yet Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy is a sacred cow and incorporated many theorems
  10. isn't that what I just said? = "Let go, in free fall the pointer indicates 0 N." I didn't specify a specific height
  11. yes provided you drop it from a height and measure the spring extension via video as it falls, doesn't work if its hanging
  12. or you could just use an accelerometer or your mobile phone πŸ˜‰
  13. true, take your pick but the nice thing about many worlds is that there is a phone app for it πŸ˜‰
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.