• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged whirlpower /another whirlpool thread

I recall a scene from an old film about Babe Ruth in which a women (who knows little and cares even less about baseball) helps him realize why he is not dominant pitcher he once was. Because of her " IGNORANCE " it only took her 10 seconds to figure it out. In other words I agree that I have been guilty of being ignorant enough times that I should know better than to act arrogant please forgive me. But I believe sometimes too much knowlegde of one subject can bound the mind . So don't punish me for being ignorant of trivial info. Albert Einstein himself admitted he could'nt tell you off hand how many feet are in a mile because he didn't like cluttering his mind with minute details, but he knew where to find the answer in his notes. I admit I suffer from beaten poster syndrome , so I know I am asking for it everytime I click submit reply. But will all you professional skeptical intellectuals cut a bricklayer some slack, on second thought, BRING IT ON its only way to refine my Whizdumb.

By the way the Great Bambino holds the record for most strikeouts. Its the price you pay for aiming far.

There is not one thing that you have posted that defends your actions.

Having a brand new idea is fine but you have to prove it and support it with proper logic and evidence. Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of.
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?
The mathematics says yes. The observation of black holes says yes.

It looks like you are proud of your ignorance.
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?

Do you know the connection between the following?

1) Electron beam focusing in a cathode ray tube

2) Telemetry systems (i.e. GPS)

3) Long distance telecommunications

The answer is that they all work with the principles of Einsteins beautiful mathematical framework called relativity. My examples are only uses in technology. I could list dozens of pure science experiments that also validate relativity in different ways.

Relativity predicts the existence of black holes which light can enter but never leave. Obviously, we don't have a black hole in a lab where we can test it. I would still believe they exist without all the indirect evidence that's become available. It isn't a leap of faith but instead a logical conclusion of Einstein's theory and all it's supporting experiments. If you want to claim that BH's don't exist then you would have to explain why my cell phone's GPS works on a principle that says BH's should exist.
 
Last edited:
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?

The relevant belief does not concern black holes, it concerns the theory that predicts them. If that theory (Einstein's general relativity) is correct, black holes exist. If it is not, they may not.

There is very strong experimental and theoretical evidence for general relativity. Moreover it is the only theory we know of that correctly describes many of the phenomena science has observed so far. Therefore, we believe that is it probably correct with pretty high confidence. Since we also observe black holes (indirectly, via their accretion disks), that's yet another reason, and one independent of the theory.

It doesn't have much to do with anyone's ignorance except yours.
 
I recall a scene from an old film about Babe Ruth in which a women (who knows little and cares even less about baseball) helps him realize why he is not dominant pitcher he once was. Because of her " IGNORANCE " it only took her 10 seconds to figure it out. In other words I agree that I have been guilty of being ignorant enough times that I should know better than to act arrogant please forgive me. But I believe sometimes too much knowlegde of one subject can bound the mind . So don't punish me for being ignorant of trivial info. Albert Einstein himself admitted he could'nt tell you off hand how many feet are in a mile because he didn't like cluttering his mind with minute details, but he knew where to find the answer in his notes. I admit I suffer from beaten poster syndrome , so I know I am asking for it everytime I click submit reply. But will all you professional skeptical intellectuals cut a bricklayer some slack, on second thought, BRING IT ON its only way to refine my Whizdumb.

By the way the Great Bambino holds the record for most strikeouts. Its the price you pay for aiming far.

So which are you Babe Ruth or Einstein?
 
Is angular momentum responsible for how half a revolution of motion from one magnet caused hundreds possibly thousands of revolutions upon another magnet

Yeesh, what is it with nuts and their so-called "angular momentum"? As if such a thing even makes sense. Some kind of magic force (sorry, should that be pressure?) that keeps things spinning even when there is nothing around pushing them? Please, even Babe Ruth could see the very idea is ridiculous and is only accepted by the public because of lies and mind control drugs being pushed by Big Momentum. Everyone knows that spinning is actually caused by invisible fairies. When you wave one magnet near another, some of the fairies jump from one magnet to another and start pushing it in the same direction, only in circles. No-one knows exactly why this is, but current theories suggest that they are trying to steal the second magnet to add it to their collection.

Seriously though, it's fairies.
 
Image:Tionesta_whirlpool.JPG
 
[qimg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tionesta_whirlpool.JPG[/qimg]

Because your post came up entirely blank, I was going to say that was the most intelligent thing you've posted so far. But I see now that it was simply another instance of a defective link, so I guess intelligence is once again not a factor.
 


Notice how the whirlpool prevents light from traveling underneath it.

I 'm not implying light can or can not escape its gravity, just that it can't get close enough to get trapped due to the turbulence generated from the blackhole .
 
h.g.Whiz,

Do you understand this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_curvature_tensor
What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature
And this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)
This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

If not, then just what do you think you're doing? Why do you think you can challenge General Relativity armed only with your bathtub and zero knowledge of General Relativity? You can't talk about black holes in terms of bathtub whirlpools because black holes are not defined in terms of bathtub whirlpools.

The "black holes" you're thinking of have nothing to do with the black holes studied by physicists; theirs come from a mathematical model you're completely unfamiliar with, and yours come from your imagination.

Why do you believe you can do theoretical physics with no physics or mathematics training? Do you also believe you'd be able to perform neurosurgery with no medical training? Can you see how insane that is?

You cannot gain any understanding of black holes by reasoning about whirlpools; the two have nothing to do with each other. If you want to understand black holes, you must first understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
 
Last edited:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2084548b4c97da16c4.jpg[/qimg]

Notice how the whirlpool prevents light from traveling underneath it.

I 'm not implying light can or can not escape its gravity, just that it can't get close enough to get trapped due to the turbulence generated from the blackhole .

Do the waves have to be whirling around? Have you never observed the effect of non-vortical waves on the bottom of a pool?

Imagine that you were able to cast a clear glass or plastic replica of an instantaneous state of that whirlpool. In other words, to make a distorted lens, which duplicated the shape of the water in the whirlpool, but which would not be in motion as the whirlpool is. What do you think would happen to the light that passes through that lens, and how do you think it would differ from the whirlpool?

Does a lens have to be in motion to alter the light that passes through it?

A shadow in a pool may be a good metaphor for something, but the whole point of a metaphor is that it isn't really what it stands in for. The only black hole here is in your understanding.
 
*sigh*

Again:

Whirlpools do not create energy. They use it. They use it to convert the waters motion to a vortex. This can potentially be harnessed for power. A bit of gravity leading the water downwards will add to the power output. But the whirlpool is still getting its power from elsewhere! Specifically, gravity.

This added energy is the same reason that dams have a reservoir with a higher water level than the outflow. The water can flow down the intake pipes, gaining momentum from gravity (that'd be a form of potential energy, for you non-physics-inclined-types) as it does so.


Additionally, you're questions about the shadows beneath disturbed water have been answered. Although appearantly you didn't see fit to read the responses on the first page.
For your convenience, I will quote three posts which answer the "shadows" query below.

It's called caustics.

If you look closely, you'll notice that for whatever dark portion there is, there is an equivalent lighter portion. The total amount of light is constant (excepting small differences in light absorption and reflection).

- Dr. Trintignant

Why, other than analogy, should we consider a shadow to resemble a black hole? Just saying it is not enough.

Have you considered reflection and refraction to explain why the light of your flashlight is not transmitted evenly through turbid water?

Refraction, refraction, and, as mentioned, caustics.

The shadows under your whirlpool are there for the same reason you see differences in light distribution under water in pools, ponds, lakes and oceans.

<snip>



Remember, this is your claim.
The burden of proof is on you to show that physics is wrong (i.e. that whirlpools do not use outside energy, but instead generate energy), and that the patterns of light and dark you see are not caused by caustics, reflection and refraction.
These phenomena are well explained by accepted science.

You want us to consider alternatives, provide the evidence!

Your questions have been answered. Now please stop asking questions and start answering the ones put to you.
Or if you don't, at least provide me with a good reason for not ignoring you from hereon out.
 

Back
Top Bottom