4 ms·

Before: > Kinetic energy does not become heat and light. Now: > "To make heat and light you need some other process." Translation: "You were right." Apart f

by lutusp 11y ago

Before: > Kinetic energy does not become heat and light. Now: > "To make heat and light you need some other process." Translation: "You were right." Apart from the fact that heat and light are kinetic energy. Further reading: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-rumors-in-overdrive/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave... Quote from the above article: "LIGO's detectors, at their current sensitivity, could pick up only gravitational waves of frequencies well above 10 Hertz. So if they have picked up a signal, they would have captured the final stages of the drama, when the black holes circle more than 10 times per second, speeding up to several thousand times a second just before they merge. Simulations show that the resulting waves, if played as an audible sound, resemble a bird’s ‘chirp’ (http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php) (http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Overview/sounds/chirp40-1300Hz.wav http://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Overview/sounds/chirp40-1300H...)." My original remark from yesterday, to which you ignorantly objected: "... eventually two black holes will merge, which will produce a completely fantastic observation consisting of a rapidly rising frequency (as the two BHs circle each other closer and closer, shedding their orbital energy as gravitational waves), followed by a very loud cosmological pop as the BHs finally collapse into each other."

ars 11y ago
You clearly have problems reading. I have said exactly the same thing the entire time, only you kept ignoring it. Or, to be charitable, maybe just not understanding it. Just because you don't understand the words I said, doesn't mean I didn't say it. Do you need me to quote myself? Also, I take it you did not ever study physics? If you did you would know this on your own without me telling you. What I said, over and over, is you can not turn velocity into light directly, you have to transfer that velocity to something else. In an event horizon there is nothing to transfer the velocity to, since everything is moving more or less at the same speed. I don't know why you can't seem to absorb this. I really don't. It's basic highschool physics, plus I've said it over and over and over and over. In as many different ways as I can think of. > Apart from the fact that heat and light are kinetic energy. Are you totally incapable of absorbing information? I know that sounds insulting, but I am serious. You keep saying the same wrong thing over and over despite being told different. You are wrong. Period. It's like you have a mental block stopping you from understanding this, I don't get it. > ... eventually two black holes will merge, which will produce a completely fantastic observation consisting of a rapidly rising frequency (as the two BHs circle each other closer and closer, shedding their orbital energy as gravitational waves), followed by a very loud cosmological pop as the BHs finally collapse into each other." Back to this, very nice. The problem is that they won't actually do this - time dilation means it will take infinite time for this to happen, so we'll never see this. Not sure what the point of telling you this is though. If you can't understand Conservation of Momentum there is zero chance you'll understand relativity. Try this - stop arguing with me. Clearly I'm not the teacher for you. Go find some other people - show them this thread if you like. Then have them explain Conservation of Momentum to you. Also ask them to explain the difference between kinetic and electromagnetic energy. Please do that before replying, otherwise we'll just be going in a circle.
- lutusp 11y ago
  > I have said exactly the same thing the entire time This is a lie -- you keep changing your claim to keep up with the facts other people provide you with. Examples below. > What I said, over and over, is you can not turn velocity into light directly, you have to transfer that velocity to something else. That's not what you said originally, and you are now lying. You said that "Kinetic energy does not become heat and light. Kinetic energy is velocity." Both statements are false (velocity is one of many examples of kinetic energy but the reverse claim is an error of omission), and I provided the literature references, which you refused to read. You earlier said: > Friction might cause objects to equalize in velocity, but can not actually reduce velocity (only share it amongst the objects). Totally false -- velocity is not conserved, energy is conserved. There's no conservation of velocity law. If you were a scientist, if you knew anything about physics and possessed intellectual integrity, you would drop a lump of clay, watch it abruptly stop at the floor as it efficiently converts velocity into heat. Or two billiard balls on a collision course, or two protons at the LHC, etc. etc.. > Clearly I'm not the teacher for you. "The teacher?" You're utterly ignorant and a narcissist to boot. You're severely mentally ill, unfortunately there's no cure for malignant narcissism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism). We're done -- you have to learn this on your own without embarrassing yourself further in this public forum. Have a nice day.
  - ars 11y ago
    > velocity is not conserved, energy is conserved. There's no conservation of velocity law But there is, it's called Conservation of Momentum. It's velocity times mass. Go look it up - it will take just a few seconds on google. I'll wait. > you would drop a lump of clay, watch it abruptly stop at the floor as it efficiently converts velocity into heat No, it transferred its velocity to the entire planet. > Or two billiard balls on a collision course One has positive velocity, the other negative. They cancel out. But go try making two billiard balls stop when they are both going the same way (as in your example about particles near the event horizon). You can't. Try it - maybe it will help. You have to transfer the velocity to something else. > We're done -- you have to learn this on your own without embarrassing yourself further in this public forum. Have a nice day. Oh, we were done ages ago. One you do learn some physics you'll recall this conversion and cringe in embarrassment, not at your ignorance, but at your refusal to learn. Your attempt at "diagnosing me" doesn't perturb me, because I know this stuff backward and forwards. Your obstinacy just amuses me. This stuff is so basic your comments are just laughable.

by lutusp 11y ago

ars 11y ago

You clearly have problems reading. I have said exactly the same thing the entire time, only you kept ignoring it. Or, to be charitable, maybe just not understanding it. Just because you don't understand the words I said, doesn't mean I didn't say it. Do you need me to quote myself? Also, I take it you did not ever study physics? If you did you would know this on your own without me telling you. What I said, over and over, is you can not turn velocity into light directly, you have to transfer that velocity to something else. In an event horizon there is nothing to transfer the velocity to, since everything is moving more or less at the same speed. I don't know why you can't seem to absorb this. I really don't. It's basic highschool physics, plus I've said it over and over and over and over. In as many different ways as I can think of. > Apart from the fact that heat and light are kinetic energy. Are you totally incapable of absorbing information? I know that sounds insulting, but I am serious. You keep saying the same wrong thing over and over despite being told different. You are wrong. Period. It's like you have a mental block stopping you from understanding this, I don't get it. > ... eventually two black holes will merge, which will produce a completely fantastic observation consisting of a rapidly rising frequency (as the two BHs circle each other closer and closer, shedding their orbital energy as gravitational waves), followed by a very loud cosmological pop as the BHs finally collapse into each other." Back to this, very nice. The problem is that they won't actually do this - time dilation means it will take infinite time for this to happen, so we'll never see this. Not sure what the point of telling you this is though. If you can't understand Conservation of Momentum there is zero chance you'll understand relativity. Try this - stop arguing with me. Clearly I'm not the teacher for you. Go find some other people - show them this thread if you like. Then have them explain Conservation of Momentum to you. Also ask them to explain the difference between kinetic and electromagnetic energy. Please do that before replying, otherwise we'll just be going in a circle.

lutusp 11y ago
> I have said exactly the same thing the entire time This is a lie -- you keep changing your claim to keep up with the facts other people provide you with. Examples below. > What I said, over and over, is you can not turn velocity into light directly, you have to transfer that velocity to something else. That's not what you said originally, and you are now lying. You said that "Kinetic energy does not become heat and light. Kinetic energy is velocity." Both statements are false (velocity is one of many examples of kinetic energy but the reverse claim is an error of omission), and I provided the literature references, which you refused to read. You earlier said: > Friction might cause objects to equalize in velocity, but can not actually reduce velocity (only share it amongst the objects). Totally false -- velocity is not conserved, energy is conserved. There's no conservation of velocity law. If you were a scientist, if you knew anything about physics and possessed intellectual integrity, you would drop a lump of clay, watch it abruptly stop at the floor as it efficiently converts velocity into heat. Or two billiard balls on a collision course, or two protons at the LHC, etc. etc.. > Clearly I'm not the teacher for you. "The teacher?" You're utterly ignorant and a narcissist to boot. You're severely mentally ill, unfortunately there's no cure for malignant narcissism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism). We're done -- you have to learn this on your own without embarrassing yourself further in this public forum. Have a nice day.
- ars 11y ago
  > velocity is not conserved, energy is conserved. There's no conservation of velocity law But there is, it's called Conservation of Momentum. It's velocity times mass. Go look it up - it will take just a few seconds on google. I'll wait. > you would drop a lump of clay, watch it abruptly stop at the floor as it efficiently converts velocity into heat No, it transferred its velocity to the entire planet. > Or two billiard balls on a collision course One has positive velocity, the other negative. They cancel out. But go try making two billiard balls stop when they are both going the same way (as in your example about particles near the event horizon). You can't. Try it - maybe it will help. You have to transfer the velocity to something else. > We're done -- you have to learn this on your own without embarrassing yourself further in this public forum. Have a nice day. Oh, we were done ages ago. One you do learn some physics you'll recall this conversion and cringe in embarrassment, not at your ignorance, but at your refusal to learn. Your attempt at "diagnosing me" doesn't perturb me, because I know this stuff backward and forwards. Your obstinacy just amuses me. This stuff is so basic your comments are just laughable.