Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Some models in physics. / My opinion./
8 views
Skip to first unread message
socr...@bezeqint.net
Apr 8, 2012, 10:21:54 AM4/8/12
to
Some models in physics. / My opinion./
We drink the water - something physical/ material.
We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
In our physical body the material blood flows.
Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
=======.
I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
of reality. Why? Because reality comes from reality and
reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
is created on the sand.
===.
1.
G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
falling radiation on it. If quantum of light will get into
this area it will not radiate back.
2.
The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum
of light can not to escape from it, was put forward by
John Michell in 1783.
3.
For me it is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely
black body) and the Michell's model (black hole) are
identical because they both execute one and the same
function – they absorb all falling radiation.
4
A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
#
A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking
temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less
than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
#
Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that
the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources”
is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite
density
are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into
the nature of the Universe.
/ Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen
Smith /
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/11/black-flares/
=.
My heretical idea:
The ‘black hole’ with thermodynamic temperature about - –--> T= 0K.
and Kirchhoff 's ‘absolutely black body’ are models of
a Homogeneous Energy Vacuum - Space between billions Galaxies.
By the way, Max Laue called the ‘absolutely black body’
as ‘ Kircchoff 's vacuum’. ( vacuum - ! )
=.
#
Everybody think that conception of ‘ ideal gas’ is an abstract model.
But the temperature of ‘ ideal gas’ is T=0K and it is exactly as the
temperature of ‘black hole ‘ . Therefore I say, that conception o
‘ ideal gas’ is model of vacuum and we can use all formulas of
‘ ideal gas’ to understand the pure vacuum: T=0K.
==
P.S.
What are results of Vacuum’s absorption ?
If Quantum of light which got into area of
“absolutely black body- black hole – ideal gas - vacuum ”
and did not radiate back then the " thermal death " come.
And in the Nature it is not observed.
1
Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
" Thermal death " condition can change when radiation of
quantum of light having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
That is individual fluctuation of single quantum of light from vacuum.
2
In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
they can emit radiation.
That is collective – gravity fluctuation of light quanta from vacuum.
======..
We drink the water - something physical/ material.
We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
In our physical body the material blood flows.
Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
=======.
I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
of reality. Why? Because reality comes from reality and
reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
is created on the sand.
===.
1.
G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
falling radiation on it. If quantum of light will get into
this area it will not radiate back.
2.
The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum
of light can not to escape from it, was put forward by
John Michell in 1783.
3.
For me it is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely
black body) and the Michell's model (black hole) are
identical because they both execute one and the same
function – they absorb all falling radiation.
4
A black hole has a temperature within a few
millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
/ Oxford. Dictionary./
#
A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking
temperature of about 100 nanokelvins. This is far less
than the 2.7 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
#
Previous Picture of the Day articles about black holes suggested that
the terminology used to describe “gravitational point sources”
is highly speculative: space/time, singularities, and infinite
density
are abstract concepts, precluding a realistic investigation into
the nature of the Universe.
/ Oct 12, 2011. Black hole theory contradicts itself. By Stephen
Smith /
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/11/black-flares/
=.
My heretical idea:
The ‘black hole’ with thermodynamic temperature about - –--> T= 0K.
and Kirchhoff 's ‘absolutely black body’ are models of
a Homogeneous Energy Vacuum - Space between billions Galaxies.
By the way, Max Laue called the ‘absolutely black body’
as ‘ Kircchoff 's vacuum’. ( vacuum - ! )
=.
#
Everybody think that conception of ‘ ideal gas’ is an abstract model.
But the temperature of ‘ ideal gas’ is T=0K and it is exactly as the
temperature of ‘black hole ‘ . Therefore I say, that conception o
‘ ideal gas’ is model of vacuum and we can use all formulas of
‘ ideal gas’ to understand the pure vacuum: T=0K.
==
P.S.
What are results of Vacuum’s absorption ?
If Quantum of light which got into area of
“absolutely black body- black hole – ideal gas - vacuum ”
and did not radiate back then the " thermal death " come.
And in the Nature it is not observed.
1
Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
" Thermal death " condition can change when radiation of
quantum of light having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
That is individual fluctuation of single quantum of light from vacuum.
2
In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
they can emit radiation.
That is collective – gravity fluctuation of light quanta from vacuum.
======..
Boikat
Apr 8, 2012, 10:44:58 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 9:21 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what I missed out on by skipping the whole
"recreational drug" thing. Then a reminder shows up.
Boikat
wrote:
"recreational drug" thing. Then a reminder shows up.
Boikat
oleb...@yahoo.com
Apr 8, 2012, 11:02:40 AM4/8/12
to
And falling things really don't accelerate at 9.80665 m/s2.
Kleuskes & Moos
Apr 8, 2012, 1:17:22 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:02:40 -0700, oleboozer wrote:
> And falling things really don't accelerate at 9.80665 m/s2.
In many^h^h^h^hmost places, they don't.
> And falling things really don't accelerate at 9.80665 m/s2.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________
/ Hey, waiter! I want a NEW SHIRT and a \
\ PONY TAIL with lemon sauce! /
---------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Norman
Apr 8, 2012, 1:35:14 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT), oleb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> And falling things really don't accelerate at 9.80665 m/s2.
Nor do black bodies fail to radiate as efficiently as they absorb.
>
> And falling things really don't accelerate at 9.80665 m/s2.
Ernest Major
Apr 8, 2012, 2:02:48 PM4/8/12
to
In message
<29c97d26-f696-494a...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"socr...@bezeqint.net" <socr...@bezeqint.net> writes
all incoming radiation; in other words it does not reflect any incoming
radiation. It is not true that black holes do not radiate.
What would be true is that the spectrum of radiation emitted from a
black body is independent of any incoming radiation.
Additionally black bodies produce a particular frequency distribution of
radiation which depends solely on temperature.
That all black holes are black bodies does not imply that all black
bodies are black holes. (It may be that black holes are the only
non-abstract/non-approximate black bodies.)
for all black holes.
In reality, low temperatures are one of the conditions at which the
ideal gas model breaks down. From Wiki - "Generally, a gas behaves more
like an ideal gas at higher temperature and lower density (i.e. lower
pressure), ..."
Nor is the temperature of a black hole exactly 0K.
alias Ernest Major
<29c97d26-f696-494a...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"socr...@bezeqint.net" <socr...@bezeqint.net> writes
>Some models in physics. / My opinion./
>
>We drink the water - something physical/ material.
>We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
>In our physical body the material blood flows.
>Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
>In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
>Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
>Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
>=======.
>I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
> of reality. Why? Because reality comes from reality and
> reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
> need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
>where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
>And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
>If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
> is created on the sand.
>===.
>1.
>G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
>Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
>falling radiation on it. If quantum of light will get into
> this area it will not radiate back.
You've got this wrong, or at least stated it badly. A black body absorbs
>
>We drink the water - something physical/ material.
>We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
>In our physical body the material blood flows.
>Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
>In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
>Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
>Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
>=======.
>I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
> of reality. Why? Because reality comes from reality and
> reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
> need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
>where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
>And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
>If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
> is created on the sand.
>===.
>1.
>G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
>Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
>falling radiation on it. If quantum of light will get into
> this area it will not radiate back.
all incoming radiation; in other words it does not reflect any incoming
radiation. It is not true that black holes do not radiate.
What would be true is that the spectrum of radiation emitted from a
black body is independent of any incoming radiation.
Additionally black bodies produce a particular frequency distribution of
radiation which depends solely on temperature.
>2.
>The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum
> of light can not to escape from it, was put forward by
>John Michell in 1783.
>3.
>For me it is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely
> black body) and the Michell's model (black hole) are
>identical because they both execute one and the same
>function – they absorb all falling radiation.
Your conclusion is fallacious - all A are B does not imply all B are A.
>The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum
> of light can not to escape from it, was put forward by
>John Michell in 1783.
>3.
>For me it is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely
> black body) and the Michell's model (black hole) are
>identical because they both execute one and the same
>function – they absorb all falling radiation.
That all black holes are black bodies does not imply that all black
bodies are black holes. (It may be that black holes are the only
non-abstract/non-approximate black bodies.)
>4
>A black hole has a temperature within a few
>millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
>/ Oxford. Dictionary./
If quantum black holes exist, and theory is correct, this is not true
>A black hole has a temperature within a few
>millionths of a degree above absolute zero: T=0K.
>/ Oxford. Dictionary./
for all black holes.
ideal gas model breaks down. From Wiki - "Generally, a gas behaves more
like an ideal gas at higher temperature and lower density (i.e. lower
pressure), ..."
Nor is the temperature of a black hole exactly 0K.
>==
>P.S.
>What are results of Vacuum’s absorption ?
>
>If Quantum of light which got into area of
>“absolutely black body- black hole – ideal gas - vacuum ”
>and did not radiate back then the " thermal death " come.
>And in the Nature it is not observed.
>1
>Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
>" Thermal death " condition can change when radiation of
>quantum of light having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
>That is individual fluctuation of single quantum of light from vacuum.
>2
>In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
>showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
> they can emit radiation.
> That is collective – gravity fluctuation of light quanta from vacuum.
>======..
>
--
>P.S.
>What are results of Vacuum’s absorption ?
>
>If Quantum of light which got into area of
>“absolutely black body- black hole – ideal gas - vacuum ”
>and did not radiate back then the " thermal death " come.
>And in the Nature it is not observed.
>1
>Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
>" Thermal death " condition can change when radiation of
>quantum of light having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
>That is individual fluctuation of single quantum of light from vacuum.
>2
>In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
>showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
> they can emit radiation.
> That is collective – gravity fluctuation of light quanta from vacuum.
>======..
>
alias Ernest Major
wiki trix
Apr 8, 2012, 3:59:25 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:21 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
do indeed drink water, and do everything else, in a purely
informational/computational illusion.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
wrote:
> Some models in physics. / My opinion./
>
> We drink the water - something physical/ material.
> We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
It from Bit... according to John Archibald Wheeler, and many others we
>
> We drink the water - something physical/ material.
> We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
do indeed drink water, and do everything else, in a purely
informational/computational illusion.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
Bob Casanova
Apr 9, 2012, 1:46:41 PM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "socr...@bezeqint.net"
<socr...@bezeqint.net>:
>Some models in physics. / My opinion./
>
>We drink the water - something physical/ material.
>We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
>In our physical body the material blood flows.
>Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
>In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
>Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
>Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
...which is the intent of models, even though no model
smaller or less complex than the system being modeled can
capture 100% of the system. Who, other than you, thinks
otherwise?
>=======.
>I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
> of reality.
Who do you imagine thinks it is? Models are models, no more;
some are more complete than others.
> Why? Because reality comes from reality and
> reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
> need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
>where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
>And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
....which, if they occur, are addressed in more complete
models. You didn't know this?
>If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
> is created on the sand.
Your navel must be fascinating...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "socr...@bezeqint.net"
<socr...@bezeqint.net>:
>Some models in physics. / My opinion./
>
>We drink the water - something physical/ material.
>We don’t drink mathematical / chemical formula H2O.
>In our physical body the material blood flows.
>Not the formulas of blood flow in our body.
>In the Universe there are many elementary particles.
>Not models of ‘ particles - points’ exist in the Universe.
>Models and formulas must describe the real picture of Nature.
smaller or less complex than the system being modeled can
capture 100% of the system. Who, other than you, thinks
otherwise?
>=======.
>I think that it is impossible to take abstract model as fundament
> of reality.
some are more complete than others.
> Why? Because reality comes from reality and
> reality creates reality. And if we reach a point where we
> need to bridge between abstract and reality, and that's the point
>where the axioms, hypotheses, and postulates are needed.
>And they lead us to paradoxes and puzzles.
models. You didn't know this?
>If our primary model is abstract then all physical construction
> is created on the sand.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
0 new messages