Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 191 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#54349 - 08/27/15 10:35 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Dave
If time stops in my reference frame, this is what I measure.


Of course, what you measure is your reality and you have as much right as anyone to claim that your measurement is correct. What, as far as I am aware, you can't do is claim that your reality is valid outside your F of R. You can claim that your measurement is correct in your F of R, but not in the F of R of the object you are measuring.

The following is an extract from my notes of a few years ago.

"Perhaps what popular science books tend to present as a problem is, in reality, nothing more than a recurrence of Zeno’s paradox. If we consider the situation from the point of view of the outside observer as an example of asymptotic decay, in which the infalling object is not simply stuck for ever in the same state, but is gradually vanishing, with its progress being recorded by an asymptotic curve, then, in theory, it would never actually vanish, but in reality, like Zeno’s arrow, it would come to a conclusion. In other words, it would vanish, and time would not actually stop. This seems to be the simplest explanation, and the simplest may well be the best."
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
.
#54350 - 08/27/15 11:39 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
He isn't going to get this Bill S it's the same issue as when you try to be a photon. All your classical physics will tell you time has stopped and you will chase your tail.

What he hasn't realized is he has expressly broken relativity he has put an absolute zero frame on the outside observer. They now control time and define what time is.

What he is neglecting and doesn't get is the infalling observer see none of that time most definitely doesn't stop for them. He won't and can't accept that smile

It's really funny you see people do this time and time again.

To try and show him how broken has has made relativity all you can do is try two observers moving at a fraction the speed of light say 0.2c and 0.4c looking at the person infalling and ask him to choose which controls time. What he will do then is try an install a third stationary observer again and tell you the new stationary observer controls and defines time and work everything from there. He will try and create an absolute space and time (zero frame reference) every time and doesn't even realize it.

ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME LIVES ... CUE MAROSZ smile

It's like the detail on the black hole interior, it's a time frozen patch of space in his idea not a born rigid body. He isn't being careful with detail, to him those two things are the same and he will argue it. Think about a naive layman stupid description of a solid it's something that doesn't move, and he is using that definition in a science argument. Apparently you can freeze time it doesn't cause any problems, things just get frozen solid and classic physics says a photon sees no time so you are on good solid ground.

Hey I have seen that on countless TV shows it works to every layman ... stop time you get frozen solid laugh

The answer is he has completely broken SR/GR in so many ways it hurts. However ask him and his theory is completely compatible with SR/GR and he will insist it is.

I am bailing from the conversation he is like Bill G he knows enough classical physics to get him into trouble but not enough to get him out and too pig headed to just listen to the real problem. I can't help people who don't want to be helped and we can clearly see the issue.

Notice you got the problem and very fast and it flew straight over the top of Bill G's head all he could do was criticize me. You have come along way in your science understanding and journey.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 02:43 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54355 - 08/28/15 10:01 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Bill S is quite correct but the quote he gives skips into talking of reality. There is no reality, no true reference frame - they are all equivalent. This is the trap for which I am constantly berated, whereas in truth I keep it constantly in mind.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54356 - 08/28/15 01:48 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So we are not the first to tell you that you do not understand relativity at all?

So why don't you go and learn GR properly, you are not the usual uneducated or religious types that inhabit science forums and it isn't that hard?

Yes you will get berated if you refuse to learn and want to keep dribbling that stuff on a science forum and you deserve it.

You can't really stop time you would get a big rip effect only it would be an instant rip rather than the cosmological slow version. What happens next wouldn't be pretty lets say it all ends badly for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

Quote:
When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure. When these interactions become impossible, the structure is "ripped apart".

That is exactly what you are describing in the middle of your black hole. The observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure (it actually becomes zero in your theory), the fundemental forces stop (you realized and told me that). What you missed is the structure of space itself then gets ripped apart, instead you freeze everything still like in the movies. Sorry Quantum Mechanics is going to spoil your day and rip every piece of spacetime you stopped time in apart. No frozen solid a gapping tear in the fabric of spacetime.

So the bit the movies leave out when they freeze time is the one where that patch of space they froze then literally rips itself apart.

Guess but a reasonable one is that your instant rip will then spread out until it consumed the entire universe.

You don't have a born rigid solid in your theory you have an "instant rip" in the middle. Fortunately as you violate SR/GR in the first place your version of a black hole could never form and we can all sleep safe in our beds.

So the hint here is whenever you get time being stopped or zero in GR pick another frame of reference as that isn't a global reality but something specific to the frame of reference you have chosen .... you need to be comfortable time can't really stop QM says so. Basically it's telling you there is a problem with your reference frame, all frames are equally valid so pick another one.

The most common way you get this is trying to pick a frame of reference at the speed of light itself, like the photon view of the universe.

That is all that is happening at the event horizon you get time stopping in some reference frames, it isn't a global truth and other reference frames won't see it like that.

If you picked the infalling observer he doesn't see time stop at all, he just has really weird observations as he looks at the universe. See time is perfectly fine and he sails on thru the event horizon (at least in GR) until he gets dies a horrible stretched death.

So no time was not really stopped or harmed in any way. One observer sees time stopping, another observer sees time normal but weird observations. We can calculate why they disagree and yeah it's strange but perfectly expected.

Given that it sounds like you have form of websites, I guess you will stubbornly refuse to try and work out the details and we will all just have to start ignoring you.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 02:26 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54357 - 08/28/15 02:33 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Orac, so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support, although I don't quite get the connection. If you accept Einstein's equivalence principle, so making Schwarzschild coordinates just as acceptable as any other, can you tell we just where what they say about what we observe (in our view) become unacceptable to you? Is it just at the event horizon and is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities? You keep bringing up QM but it is just because QM breaks down that black holes form. In particular, the exclusion principle no longer holds sway.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54358 - 08/28/15 03:42 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Orac, so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support, although I don't quite get the connection. If you accept Einstein's equivalence principle, so making Schwarzschild coordinates just as acceptable as any other, can you tell we just where what they say about what we observe (in our view) become unacceptable to you?


Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support.

What highly unlikely theory would that be?

Man you really don't get relativity at all do you. You understand QM even less smile

Your Schwarzschild coordinates are fine from that particular frame of reference and it will create a view that time stops. Take the infalling observer frame and time doesn't stop for him.

So we have a problem don't we, two observers see time doing different things and so what is layman normal to do is try and pick one and falsify the other. It's in our classical physics upbringing that we want one universal classical reality so one must be right and one wrong.

What Eistein realized is what if both are true, time both stops and doesn't stop depending on your frame of reference of motion thru spacetime. He realized it because he got the connection that forces like centripedal force arise from nowhere in a point in space. Someone outside a fast cornering car doesn't see or even realize the occupants inside are experiencing "G forces" as they corner fast. Reality is defined by a frame of reference not universally.

What Eistein realized was both can be true, time can stop in one frame of reference and not stop in another. Every ounce of your classical physics upbringing will fight that. However if you accept it you can quickly realize then that you can't say anything definitive about time from any classical frame of reference.

Once you do that you get the foundation of Quantum Mechanics and it has only one reference and only one reference which is time. So QM is all about time and space is simply a field that results play out in. So in many ways it is the exact reverse of normal classical physics there everything is about space and time is where results play out.

So in QM you can't stop time period .... it is simply not something that can be done. The energy that is vibrating in every point in space would blow up instantly and catastrophically ... bad very bad our friend instant rip appears.

So it's safe to assume QM doesn't break down at the event horizon on a black hole it should go cleanly thru the horizon. There isn't any direct interaction between gravity and QM and you wouldn't even be able to isolate the EH from within QM as there simply isn't anything to look for it would be boring and dull.

So QM sees the event horizon pretty much like the infalling observer reference frame in relativity nothing exciting.

What that means is from gravitational observers frame of reference they should see really weird things because time is stopping for them.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Is it just at the event horizon and is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities?

There are no infinities in QM reference frame at an event horizon that is what makes it interesting. It is fully defined your gravity frame of references are the ones with infinities. QM sees the EH in agreement with the infalling observer .... BORING.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
You keep bringing up QM but it is just because QM breaks down that black holes form. In particular, the exclusion principle no longer holds sway.

a.) Some people think QM might break inside a black hole, many others would argue bad bad things will happen if that occured.
b.) If QM does break it's not going to at the event horizon you need far stronger force of gravity than at the EH to break QM. The breaking point for QM would be infintesimely close to a gravity singularity.

See the problem QM will work right thru the EH and about as close to the singularity if it exist as any theory we have.

You seem to accepted that QM is the only thing holding a neutron star from collapsing so you get some idea of the gravity forces it's capable of withstanding. Calculate the force of gravity at the event horizon of a solar mass black hole and compare it to the neutron star ... they aren't even in the same ballpark smile

What we end up with then is the full picture of a black hole which is compatible with both GR and QM and makes perfect sense.

The problem for you is that you can't do QM in Schwarzschild coordinates and you can guess why ... think what time is doing.

So we have time actually rolling smoothly thru the event horizon but from some gravity frames of reference it will look like time stops and that is perfectly expected.

For humour if you don't accept that .... time doesn't stop by a vote of 2 to 1 .... infalling observer and QM say no.

The lesson here is stopping time is possible in a frame of reference but for goodness sake don't think that reality is a universal truth and it actually stops universally. A quick check from another reference frame should quickly confirm that it hasn't stopped.

See and now when I tell you a photon from the big bang has been travelling for 12 Billion years in my reference frame and it has been travelling for 0 seconds in the photons reference frame should make sense. Except if I am right every brain cell in your classical head will rebel and say that can't be so you want one universal reality and time base and I can't help you.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 04:11 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54359 - 08/28/15 04:15 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
So much of what you have said that I agree with totally but
you say the forces which hold up a neutron star are greater than those at the event horizon?
If you add sufficient mass to a neutron star, wont it collapse to a black hole? That would seem to contradict what you are saying. Could you explain this thinking?
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54360 - 08/28/15 04:21 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Yes it will collapse it you keep going but if you are in a speculative mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter

Get it there is expected to be a collapse state in QM even denser than a neutron star held up by QCD degeneracy.

That what those big relativistic colliders are doing like RHIC.

This stuff doesn't make glossy science media because people just don't understand it because this stuff doesn't look anything like normal matter layman know about.

Whats beyond that well we will know that when we get there.

So actually you went from a neutron star to a black hole and see that is most likely wrong there is probably another step after a neutron star held up by QM forces.

So you missed the possibility of a Quark star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

It gets worse ... you can take QM pretty much up to near the big bang .... see the importance of trusting QM smile

The trick is predicting what they will look like and how they behave so we can try and look for them ... hence the colliders.

Again you need to understand the important details if you are really wanting to theorize in this area and that is way beyond what is written in glossy media sites.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 04:45 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54361 - 08/28/15 04:44 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
I looked at quark stars but I understood that they had generally been dismissed.
As for expectations for the future - well anyone's guess. So you are saying I should wait for some undiscovered theory to put me right. When that day comes I will withdraw everything.
If there really was a force similar to neutron binding energy but leading to a more dense state, can you explain why the density of large black holes gets less and less?
I do not truly believe that infinity or time standing still is a reality - what we have is an unbounded variable that is increasing without limit. It may become infinite if we wait an infinite time, but that will never happen. But the maths for dealing with this are fairly well understood, and as long as we are not expecting the impossible to happen, so is the physics. Anyway keep scanning the scientific press. Researchers have been looking for such a new theory for some 50 years, so far with no success, just more and more bizarre predictions.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54362 - 08/28/15 04:58 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
If there really was a force similar to neutron binding energy but leading to a more dense state, can you explain why the density of large black holes gets less and less?

Come on .... really ... you are a mathematician.

The density goes down if you consider it from the event horizon which is what you are doing because that is special to you.

So your excercise put a dot on a page and write a solar black hole mass. Now calculate the radius of the event horizon.

Now double the mass you wrote for the dot and calculate the new event horizon radius.

When you have done that now write the spherical volume for each sphere at the event horizon.

Surely you see what is happening as a mathematician the event horizon is going out as the square or the radius but the volume is going as the cube of the radius.

The reality is all the mass is in a single point but viewed from the event horizon the density is going down as the volume is a cubic .... good old 4/3 * PI * R^3

How hard is that to understand for a mathematician, I would have thought you could work that out yourself.

Density is an AVERAGE that is the problem and you have nothing like a uniform spacing. That actually directly shows you insignificant the Event horizon truely is in that it gives you that stupidity.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 05:01 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54363 - 08/28/15 05:01 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
No, just all the mass at a single dot.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54364 - 08/28/15 05:02 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The density doesn't go down for the single dot ... LOL

Show me anyone who says it does, it goes down if you do density from the event horizon which classical lunatics do because its ever so important.

In a singularity black hole the density of that dot is infinity.

Actually I need to put a clarification if no wormhole exists then density is infinity.

LOL even physics for idiots gets that one right
http://physicsforidiots.com/space/black-holes/

Quote:
Zero Size and Infinite Density.

Sorry I shouldn't laugh but that was almost as funny as really stopping time.


Edited by Orac (08/28/15 05:22 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54365 - 08/28/15 07:28 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
So infinite density yes, infinite time no. Your beliefs are clear but the rationale escapes me.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54366 - 08/29/15 01:50 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The rational is simple .... Relativity ... there is no PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME.

Time stopped in your reference frame you choose ... big deal means absolutely nothing outside that frame. What are you going to do force that on every other reference frame and tell them they aren't seeing what they are seeing.

So do you understand why your idea isn't compatible with relativity?

It's really layman stupid and simple you have reference frames that tell you time isn't stopping. But you, like stupid layman do, take a reference frame result that time is stopping and try to enforce it on every other reference frame and play GOD.

Dave Proffitt = GOD and chooses the one special reference frame ... all hail the great GOD Dave Proffitt.

THERE ARE NO PREFERRED OR SPECIAL REFERENCE FRAMES IN RELATIVITY

So if you want to have time to universally stop in relativity you have to prove that it stops in each and every reference frame. That is a tall order but you are a mathematician knock yourself out and prove it and I will accept time stops.

So unless you can do that it's safer to just assume there is a reference frame it's still going and the usual first frame to look at is QM because it's pretty tricky to stop time in QM.

Does time really stop on the Event Horizon like in your theory well no because we can identify at least two frames of reference that say it doesn't and one would have been enough. You haven't proven that there is an error in what we describing from our reference frames you simply try and impose your GOD choosen reference frame's time on us ... a big no no unless you are god.

Your idea is falsified and science garbage because we can identify a reference frame that says ..... NO SORRY DAVE TIME STILL RUNNING.

So talk to us about those reference frames Dave what is going on there?
Oh no you don't dare discuss them do you !!!!
What are you going to do tell those observers they aren't really seeing and measuring what they are ... trust GOD Dave.

If you stop ignoring the reference frames that say your theory is wrong, we might not call you a layman idiot.

So if you go on a science forum and try and push that theory in that way, then yes you will get berated. We don't believe in the GOD Dave Proffitt who chooses which reference frame is the "right one" in science.

If you want to get your theory back alive you need to show time is stopped at the event horizon within and using the infalling observer frame of reference and the QM frame of reference. There is simply no reason time would stop for those reference frames the event horizon is dead boring to them.

Sounds like you have tried multiple science forums and I bet they all say exactly the same thing don't they.

So you are the GOD Dave Proffitt in the fast cornering car imposing the "G forces" you experience on the person who is standing watching the car. They tell you then aren't feeling any "G Forces" and you insist no they are and have to be ... they laugh and walk away making crazy gestures smile

So that is what science does with your theory, as it's stone motherless dead and this topic discussion is done. Time lives to fight another day smile

Dave may I suggest you stick to mathematics and computer graphics it suits you better. We respect others in different reference frames in science and berate reference frame racists like yourself. We understand you think your reference frame is special because it's the "pure one" but it's not an attitude we can tolerate. We live in a harmonious tolerant reference frame diverse universe and each reference frame has equal right to exist.

So if you are going on please stop talking about your "Pure racist reference frame" we agree with what it happening in it and yet you keep repeating it over and over again. Talk to us about those other reference frames you don't like, the ones that are Dave unmentionables in which time doesn't stop. That is all I will discuss going forward, I demand equal rights for all frames.


Edited by Orac (08/29/15 04:54 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54368 - 08/29/15 05:56 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
If you are going on you are ready for the Pole In Barn paradox

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html

You have a 20m pole and a 10m barn and we are going to play games and move it up to 0.9c and pass it thru the barn doors at each end of the barn ... we have 3 different observers

a) Which will be you classical lug heads that says the 20m pole wont fit in the 10m barn. It's obvious you claim as you stood there and measured both with a tape measure. Everyone knows a 20m pole wont fit in a 10m barn ... dah how stupid can you scientists be.

b) This group will sit on the roof of the barn see a the pole as 8.7m long approaching at 0.9c and as it enters the barn they close the doors each end simultaneously fully enclosing the pole in the barn. Quickly open the doors and it exits unscathed. To them you miss measured the pole and it is only 8.7m long and it fits completely in the stationary 10m barn.

c) This group are sitting on the pole approaching at 0.9c and they are on a 10m pole approaching the barn. To them the barn is only 4.37m long and both of you miss measured the length of the barn. They passes thru unscathed because the doors open and close at completely different times.


ALL 3 OBSERVATIONS ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT. The problem is it plays with our view with classical physics that there is only one answer which is (a).

The 3 Observers will never agree on anything and yet every observer is correct smile

You are going to be with group (a) and tell us the other two observers are wrong ... admit it .. you measured it and you know your mathematics.
GOD Dave lives we have our racist frame he will select the "Pure right one" and doubt the other observers laugh

The reality is you can make a 20m pole fit in a 10m barn if you move it at 0.9c because your measurement of length is loaded to a reference frame ... you chose the non moving one to measure. There is no global universal measurement and correctness of length. Your 20m pole is only 20m long in your reference frame.

That is why scientists get upset with mixing measurements from one reference frame to another. A 20m pole wont fit in a 10m barn if both measurements were done in the same reference frame. The mistake the (a) group zealots make is they assume the measurement in there frame is absolute in all reference frames and the pole can never fit in the barn. Move the pole at 0.9c it's actual length is truely 8.7m long if measured in the stationary frame and yes it fits in the barn.

The same problem exists with time it really does change with movement.

Welcome to relativity ... Dave runs screaming from the building no my classical physics says no.


Edited by Orac (08/29/15 11:40 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54370 - 08/29/15 02:16 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Dave
There is no reality, no true reference frame - they are all equivalent.


I think that is what I said. If that was not clear, perhaps I didn’t express it very well.

“There is no reality”. That seems to be a point on which we all agree. Consider the implications, though. What does that actually mean?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54371 - 08/29/15 04:53 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Dave
is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities?


You know how to handle infinities? Please tell.

As far as I was aware the one who came nearest to that was Cantor, and even he hit the ultimate “brick wall” with absolute infinity.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54372 - 08/29/15 05:10 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
It's really layman stupid....


Orac, this may be a language thing, but you did once say that the only reason you post on SAGG is to improve your English, so it may be worth mentioning that "ignorant" is not synonymous with "stupid". Possibly you are being inadvertently offensive, although, somehow I doubt that. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54373 - 08/30/15 03:14 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Thank you for that Bill S, I will add that to my understanding of English.

So it's like when I was using the word "sanity" ... sigh another one to avoid.

It is another word I have picked up from normal people discussion and actually looking up definition I see why it's offensive. I will avoid using it like I do the other one as there is obviously context around it's use.

I wouldn't have thought to use the word ignorant because clearly Dave is educated. I don't think that is the word I want.

What about naive is that more neutral?

I don't know if I told you I passed my English exam back in October last year. So I fooled them enough to pass school leaving level English.


Edited by Orac (08/30/15 04:36 AM)

Top
#54376 - 08/30/15 04:13 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Naïve is good, inexpert, untrained, untutored, unversed, even unsophisticated, if you want to ring the changes. “Wet behind the ears” is only mildly offensive.

I think I have known what your native language is; one thing I know about it is that your command of English is a lot better than my command of that language.

Having passed “school leaving level English” you are ahead of a lot of native school leavers. It’s a sort of bitter joke around here that kids leave the local secondary school saying, and writing, things like “Look wot I done”. (I pronounced “oy”).
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.