Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

[Balerion]

If there was any real chance of planetary destruction as a result of these tests, they wouldn't be doing it. I mean, you see the odds and you might say "Well, that still means it could happen" but in truth, you would have to perform the tests every day for like twice the age of the universe for it to actually happen. That's obviously just an arbitrary estimate on my part, but it is correct in speaking of just how improbable the event would be. They can't say there's no chance, because the very nature of the universe says that anything is possible...so what they can do is calculate the odds. And when we're talking about odds of that magnitude...it just ain't gonna happen.

From everything I've ever read, seen, or heard about these tests, there really is no realistic chance anything bad will happen. We need to remember that the guy blowing the whistle here is a psychologist and linguist...not a physicist. He can spew all the Einstein theory he likes, he is not as schooled in this stuff as the people performing these tests are. If there was any real threat--even a remote threat--of the Earth blinking out of existence, or a supernova destroying us, these tests simply would not be happening.

 

[invert_nexus]

I hate this thread. There is never a time that I see it on the front page that I don't consider locking and cesspooling. At least locking it.

But, I guess it's a sciforums legacy. Grandfathered in and all that rot.

Plus, we really do need to save those children.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, it has to stay open. Even if Paul wasn't running a social experiment here, he's certainly achieved one anyway. Just seeing how the replies range from "Piss off, you bloody wanker" to "OMG! Is this RILL?!" every few pages, and how the same reactions keep repeating themselves over the years is truly fascinating.

 

[Reiku]

LHC = the gas

Humans = the flame

Boom???

It's our nature to play with the unexpected like this, and yet, dispite beyond all the evidence of the contrary, we still become defiant within our egotistical natures.

How about this for a scenario... (I've actually brought quite a few forward, such as an example of a pair production with black-white holes proposed by Cramer, and me reflecting on the black hole feeding off its counterpart in just a way and long enough, so it can reach earth...)

... What about the gravitationally distorted interior of a black hole? From my understanding, the more and more we distort an area of spacetime with intensity of gravitational forces, (or simply by adding more and more energy), even more energy is added to that system.

I ask very seriously... How do we know the black hole cannot feed off of the energy that ''pops'' out of the vacuum under the stressed local boundaries of the black hole when in contrast with the electroradiation itself?

Even if Hawking radiation does exist, we still cannot be sure a black hole cannot sustain mass from other mechanisms, jus like the distortions within its structure releasing even more energy than it looses from the vacuum.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

There would be three theoretical scenarios for microblackholes [MBH].

In the first, the MBH would neither grow larger nor smaller, unless fed matter [such as travelling through a cloud of matter and having direct contact with it. This is the 'classical' version of a MBH.

In the second and third scenarios, quantum effects would come into play along the lines of Hawking's idea. Those two scenarios would be:

2. A virtual pair of matter/antimatter particles would pop into existence near the Scharzschild radius. One would have positive mass, the other 'negative mass'. The positive mass particle would fall into the MBH, and the 'negative mass' particle would wander away, only to contact its counterpart in nearby matter, with both then disappearing. This would give the appearance of nearby matter 'quantum tunneling' into the MBH. This would likely be suppressed if there was no nearby matter. This is analogous to the suppression of Electron Capture radioactive decay, in which EC radioactive nuclei can have their decay half-life altered or extended if the nearby electron cloud is modified [via different chemical bondings] so that the electrons are not as close. While never tested, it is believed that the half-life extends to nearly infinite if there are no electrons whatsoever in the vicinity of such an EC nucleus [such as I-125 or other EC radioisotopes]. This scenario is also called 'Reverse Hawking Radiation'.

3. A virtual pair of matter/antimatter particles would pop into existence near the Scharzschild radius. One would have positive mass, the other 'negative mass'. The 'negative mass' particle would fall into the MBH, and the positive mass particle would wander away. This would give the appearance of matter within the MBH 'quantum tunneling' out of the MBH, causing the MBH to 'evaporate' and release 'Hawking Radiation'. This is the standard 'Hawking Radiation' theory.

It's anyone's guess, at present, as to which of those three theories would model reality.
I believe number 2. is likely correct, in which case a MBH would be seen to rapidly grow via quantum tunneling if it were in the midst of solid or dense matter, without having to have that matter actually come into 'direct contact'.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This would give the appearance of nearby matter 'quantum tunneling' into the MBH. '.

No, it won't.

Suppose the particle/antiparticle pair is an electron and a positron. The gravitational field seperates the two of them and throws say the positron outwards and the electron falls inwards. Due to the particulars of the gravitational field and frames, the electron will be carrying with it an energy -E and the positron will have +E. The outward particle always has the positive energy.

The positron will then hit an electron. The electron also has energy +E and electron+positron gives a blast of light. The total energy of that light is 2E. The electron will have been absorbed by the black hole, which will lose an energy quantity E and will go down by a unit of charge equal to the electron.

So before we had an electron with energy E and a black hole. Now we have, outside the black hole, 2E amounts of energy and no charge. The black hole has lost a unit of charge equal to a positron and also equal to the energy of the positron, E.

So the black hole has LOST mass, despite an electron outside in the universe vanishing. Why? Because the energy of that electron PLUS the energy the black hole lost is now in the form of photons.

This is something you should have been able to work out yourself. Infact, it's blindly obvious if you even manage to grasp the Wikipedia page on Hawking radiation. It doesn't matter what the emitted particles do after they are emitted, it only matters that they carry energy AWAY from the black hole. If they hit particles outside the black hole their energy doesn't just magically vanish and reappear back in the black hole!

How can you spend so much time whining about precisely this, even going so far as to filing a law suit again CERN (in the wrong country...) and starting websites on this and yet not even understand what physical processes are actually involved!

What do you spend your time doing? Sitting with your eyes closed and with your fingers in your ears, to avoid learning physics?! I thought you were supposed to be a physicist. You just made a mistake so bad I'd be disappointed in one of my students doing it. Never mind someone who is making it his supposed business to be as vocal as possible about the problems with Hawking radiation. The problem seems to be your ignorance.

 

[2inquisitive]

AlphaNumeric,

Suppose the particle/antiparticle pair is an electron and a positron. The gravitational field seperates the two of them and throws say the positron outwards and the electron falls inwards. Due to the particulars of the gravitational field and frames, the electron will be carrying with it an energy -E and the positron will have +E. The outward particle always has the positive energy.

The positron will then hit an electron. The electron also has energy +E and electron+positron gives a blast of light. The total energy of that light is 2E. The electron will have been absorbed by the black hole, which will lose an energy quantity E and will go down by a unit of charge equal to the electron.

Sorry, this is not the way I understand Hawking radiation. The pairs produced by vacuum fluctuation are entangled virtual particles. Since the vacuum is electrically neutral, one virtual particle must be postively charged and the other negatively charged as they are entangled. But at creation, neither particle has 'real' energy or mass, only virtual. The only way one virtual particle can obtain real mass/energy is if one of the particles interacts with a third pacticle before they annihilate. If the virtual particle that entered the black hole , assume an electron, interacts with a positron at the singularity, they will annihilate with no photons produced (the electron is a virtual particle with no energy before annihilation). The annihilation will 'rob' the positron of its energy/mass and the virtual positron outside the event horizon will at that point become a 'real' positron with real mass. This mechanism is the way information can be obtained from the black hole. The infalling virtual electron can only interact with a positron inside the event horizon, and the Hawking particle produced outside the event horizon has to be the same type of particle that was destroyed inside the event horizon.

But what if the virtual positron that escaped the black hole happens to interact with an electron first? In that case, the outside annihilation of a virtual and real particle would result in the disappearence of a real electron's energy/mass outside the event horizon, and would require the entangled virtual electron inside the event horizon to gain real energy/mass. The black hole would gain the mass/energy of an electron.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

But what if the virtual positron that escaped the black hole happens to interact with an electron first?

By what deifnition of 'first' are you working with?

The boosting properties of the gravitational field makes the outward ejected particle real by the fact it's moving up through the gravitational field.

The flux of energy is always one direction due to the fact the gradient of the gravitational field is not zero.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Alpha Numeric:

Where is the proof for your statement: "The outward particle always has the positive energy."

What would preclude the outward particle from having the 'negative energy'. It would be accelerated away from the singularity, due to its 'negative mass' ['negative energy']. Indeed, it would appear that this would be the more favored reaction, with the positive mass particle falling into the MBH, and the 'negative mass' particle moving away; rather than the other way around with the 'negative mass' particle falling into the MBH, and the positive mass particle moving away [standard Hawking theory].

Thus, a MBH, once created, would always grow larger.

The assumption of the quoted statement appears wrong. Can you prove it is true?

 

[Dinosaur]

Never heard of negative energy or negative mass.

What particles have negative energy/mass?

 

[Vkothii]

What would preclude the outward particle from having the 'negative energy'.

My pick is: a negative energy particle cannot exist outside the EH.
I thought that was explained in both Hawking's books.

Since it's a particle/antiparticle virtual pair, only one gains real mass. If it falls into the hole, the ledger is balanced - no energy is lost. The black hole has to have a horizon, which must be hard to define for really small ones, or the small ones wouldn't have much of a mass or area to create virtual pairs and separate them.

The particle that escapes does not do so because it "interacts" with a third particle - the mass or energy comes from the EH.

You have read his books?

 

[Randwolf]

I assume this thread holds some kind of record here at SF, right?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Where is the proof for your statement: "The outward particle always has the positive energy."

I suggest you look up with work of Hawking. If you want something a little more digestable, try the last few chapters here. It's the lecture notes of a course an ex-student of Hawking gives and which Hawking used to give himself.

It basically comes down to how the space-time alters the 4-momentum vector of the particles. If you don't understand the Hawking process, look up the Penrose process. An infalling particle has positive energy but when it enters the ergosphere the space-time changes signature so that the energy goes from E to -E, because $$g_{ab} \sim \textrm{diag}(1,-1,1,1)$$. This is a classical process which allows energy to be at least partially extracted from a rotating black hole.

Thus, a MBH, once created, would always grow larger.

Even if the particles weren't always having postive energy, the net flux of energy be outwards, once the black hole is hotter than the surrounding space, or else what does it mean to give it temperature? If an object is hotter than it's surrounding region it will cool down, losing energy, as per thermodynamics.

So if a black hole is hotter than the surrounding space, it must be pumping energy out to cool itself down.

It would be accelerated away from the singularity, due to its 'negative mass' ['negative energy']

Show your calculations. Don't just do something like "-m put into $$F = \frac{GMm}{r^{2}}$$, I want the full blown relativistic workings. At least comparable, on the level of technical detail as the lecture notes I just linked to.

Besides, I didn't say negative mass, I said negative energy. Obviously you need a quick schooling on relativistic principles again...

Define a 4-momentum vector $$P^{\mu} = (E,\mathbf{p})$$ where E is the energy of the particle with said 4-momentum and p is it's 3-momentum. We take out metric signature to be (-1,1,1,1). By definition, $$-m^{2} \equiv g_{\mu\nu}p^{\mu}p^{\nu}$$. In flat space-time or normal coordinates, this becomes $$-m^{2} \equiv \eta_{\mu\nu}p^{\mu}p^{\nu} = -p^{0}p^{0}+|\mathbf{p}|^{2}$$. Rearranging and you have the standard formula $$E^{2} = m^{2}+|\mathbf{p}|^{2}$$.

But in a black hole you have something different. For a start, within the ergosphere you have a signature which is (1,-1,1,1), so your formula becomes $$-m^{2} = E^{2}-p_{1}^{2}+p_{2}^{2}+p_{3}^{2}$$. The relationship between energy and matter is different. Slightly arm wavey, the 4-momentum expression used in the equations for computing energy (which I can provide, but if you have a copy of Wald it's explained in there) is now effectively $$(-E,-p_{1},p_{2},p_{3})$$. The sign on the mass term hasn't changed, it's still $$-m^{2}$$ but the sign on the energy has changed.

As explained in those lecture notes and pretty much any graduate textbook on black holes (like Wald), if you have a spacially varying $$g_{00}$$ term (equivalent to come kind of potential) in the black hole like system, then provided there's a few basic things true, like the potential gets weaker as you further away and the strong energy condition, then the effect on the energy of virtual particles is that they are always boosted into a frame which makes them have positive energy when they are emitted.

Even black holes which don't have ergospheres have the same effect, just you cannot tell. The metric signature changes on the event horizon for non-rotating black holes and changes the sign of the energy of the infalling particles.

Can you prove it is true?

I can demonstrate that your grasp of relativity is worse than someone who has sat a couple of courses on it in university and doesn't even do research into it. Considering the time and effort you put into this, I am staggered you are not able to provide multiple sources for your claims and demonstrate your claims using detailed calculations. Instead, I constantly find you unable to back up your claims with sources and you demonstrate an ignorance of basic mathematical methods or physical concepts which are essential to a decent understanding of graduate level relativity, which Hawking radiation is.

Tell me, do you understand the lecture notes I linked to? Namely Chapters 8 and 9? I don't mean "I know what some of the words mean", I mean do you follow each line of the calculations, understanding why each was done?

 

[kmguru]

I assume this thread holds some kind of record here at SF, right?

Yes it does. Since this thread is heavily googled, it would be interesting to see how this evolves. Now, it is between the professionals. We mere mortals are only watchers....

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

AN:

"So if a black hole is hotter than the surrounding space, it must be pumping energy out to cool itself down."

Yes, but Hawking's theory says they keep getting hotter, not cooling down.

And while you did say 'negative energy', not 'negative mass', the two equate. However, I like Dinosaur's comments - what the heck is 'negative energy' anyway? It is a mathematical 'trick' to get the total energy to balance to Zero [conservation of mass/energy]. It's not my concept, but Hawking's. Based on the uncertainty principle, supposedly.

I've just been showing that there would be an alternative theory that also has 'negative energy'. If both virtual particles can be created [one of 'negative energy', the other of positive energy, due to the uncertainty principle, with the total energy at Zero], then at least in situations in which there are very nearby real particles, it makes just as much sense to have the virtual 'positive mass' particle fall into the MBH, and the virtual 'negative mass' particle move an Angstrom or less and interact with a real particle, with both then disappearing [instead of the mass of the MBH disappearing as in Hawking's idea of the virtual negative mass particle interacting inside the black hole with a positive mass real particle and disappearing], and the virtual positive mass particle that fell into the MBH thus becoming real, adding mass to the MBH. This then becomes the functional equivalent of the nearby real particles quantum tunneling into the MBH. It might be a quite rapid process. I havent' seen anything in your postings that proves this can't happen. Just your assertions that it can't. Why don't you ask Beatriz to review this with you?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, but Hawking's theory says they keep getting hotter, not cooling down.

And? Have you never heard of positive feedback before?

And while you did say 'negative energy', not 'negative mass', the two equate.

And yet I just proved otherwise.

In quantum field theory, there's 'positive energy' and 'negative energy' modes, which come from solutions of the Dirac equation. One relates to particles, the other to antiparticles. It was precisely that which lead to Dirac predicting the existence of the positron. And yet both positrons and electrons have positive mass. Put simply, if $$E^{2} = m^{2}+p^{2}$$ then $$E = \pm \sqrt{m^{2}+p^{2}}$$.

In general relativity the difference between positive energy and negative energy is slightly different, because it relates the squared quantities differently.

In usual metric structures you have $$p^{\mu}p_{\mu} = -m^{2} = -E^{2}+\mathbf{p}^{2}$$. If the metric changes signature then you end up with $$p^{\mu}p_{\mu} = -m^{2} = +E^{2}-(p^{1})^{2}+p_{\perp}^{2}$$. Quite different. I explained this. What about it didn't you understand?

I asked you to provide detailed calculations, you didn't. I want you to back up your claims. You claim that the people running the LHC aren't providing details but you provide none yourself. You're a hypocrite.

I've just been showing that there would be an alternative theory that also has 'negative energy'. If both virtual particles can be created [one of 'negative energy', the other of positive energy, due to the uncertainty principle, with the total energy at Zero], then at least in situations in which there are very nearby real particles, it makes just as much sense to have the virtual 'positive mass' particle fall into the MBH, and the virtual 'negative mass' particle move an Angstrom or less and interact with a real particle, with both then disappearing [instead of the mass of the MBH disappearing as in Hawking's idea of the virtual negative mass particle interacting inside the black hole with a positive mass real particle and disappearing], and the virtual positive mass particle that fell into the MBH thus becoming real, adding mass to the MBH. This then becomes the functional equivalent of the nearby real particles quantum tunneling into the MBH. It might be a quite rapid process. I havent' seen anything in your postings that proves this can't happen. Just your assertions that it can't.

You haven't shown that there's any alternative theory at all. I have told you that the frame boosting works in such a way that the ejected particle is ALWAYS the one with the real usual notion of mass and energy. I even gave an example which is entirely classical, the Penrose process. The infalling object experiences an effect from the gravitational field that when it passes into the ergosphere (where the signature changes signs about) then it gets negative $$E^{2}$$. If it then splits apart and throws some mass into the black hole, it's throwing in negative $$E^{2}$$. It then gains that when it travels back into the universe at large. He has extracted energy from the black hole. And it's done entirely without considering quantum mechanics.

When you then consider quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is providing you with the 'little spacecrafts' which then split up, one part going in and the other being ejected. The one falling in will ALWAYS be the one with the negative $$E^{2}$$ because that's the structure of the space-time. The space-time is dictating what bits get which energy and that is irrespective of what the 'bits' are made of.

Now if you claim relativity says otherwise, I want you to show it. I want you to show that considering something like $$g_{00} = V(r)$$ with $$V(r) \to \infty$$ as $$r \to 0$$ and $$V(r) \sim O(1)$$ as $$r \to \infty$$ then it's possible for a single 'entity', classical or quantum I don't mind, to be close to the event horizon (in the ergosphere or not, I don't mind), to split into two and the outwardly ejecting object to come out with an energy debt and the black hole gaining that amount of energy, ie the outward particle will steal that energy from something to feed the black hole.

I want details. You should make it as rigorous as possible. Hell, if it's good I will go out of my way to help you get it published in somewhere like JHEP. After all, it would be an explicit demonstration of your claims in a way which demonstrates you understand relativity and quantum mechanics and can apply it to your claims.

What do you say? It's just that I asked you numerous questions about the specifics of the things I linked to and you seem to have ignored them. Why is that? Is there something you need clarification on? If you didn't understand any particular part, I'll be happy to explain them to you, though I would be suprised if you didn't understand those notes. They are, after all, the first step in understanding Hawking's work.

Why don't you ask Beatriz to review this with you?.

Firstly, she's on maternity leave. Secondly, she doesn't do relativity. Thirdly, review what? I don't see you provide any demonstration that your claims are correct. Can you provide a link to a paper which shows that given the black hole being surrounded with some non-zero $$T_{ab}$$ that Hawking's process will feed the black hole?

If you can, I'll look at it. If you can't, then you'll have to do as I ask and provide the working yourself. If you cannot do that then you are claiming relativity and quantum field theory say something noone else has said they say and I have nothing to examine.

So step up Walter. Put your physics where your mouth is. I'm sure you wouldn't want to disappoint...

 

[Reiku]

Walter

Ignore Alphanumeric. He floutes the halls of forums, protesting against the protestors. He is a hypocrite when it comes to so-called ''cranks'', because he seems to be one of the biggest there is.

For instance, he loves to ''show off.'' He boasts all of the time about his capabilities, while at the same time, tries to bring others down.

Can anyone say ''insecurity?''

 

[AlphaNumeric]

because he seems to be one of the biggest there is.

And how am I a crank? When someone wants me to show I can do physics, I do so. When someone PMs me and asks for an explaination on something, I do so.

For instance, he loves to ''show off.'' He boasts all of the time about his capabilities, while at the same time, tries to bring others down.

When I see someone making claims they don't back up and which seem to bew in contradiction to mainstream physics, I ask for clarification. For instance, Walter has said several times now about the nature of the particles being emitted increasing the mass of the black hole. This is in contradiction to the results I've read and been taught. I'm asking for clarification, for details. Walter has yet to provide any.

You seem to think that because I'm capable of talking about graduate physics I'm showing off. No, this is what I do day in and day out, I talk about physics. I think about physics. And when I work too hard, I dream about physics. I don't claim to be more or know more than I am. I don't know research level relativity. I do know research level super gravity. I don't know any algebraic topology. I do know some algebraic geometry.

You claim to know quantum mechanics. You don't. You claim to know relativity. You don't. You claim to know vector calculus. You don't. And when I see you post something wrong, I say so. But you don't like it. And when you whine, I put you down. When Walter makes claims he can't back up, I point them out. Over on PhysOrg Ubanatuva has reduces the discussion about the LHC to claiming I'm a chatbot and Rpenner is the account of multiple people. He's unable to discuss physics so has to take the thread off course. Just like you Reiku.

Can anyone say ''insecurity?''

You. You constantly claim to know more than you do. You constantly lie about your knowledge and accomplishments. When someone challenges me about my claims, I back up what I say.

I have a notion of scientific integrity and so when I see people making fraudulent claims about physics, I point it out. And you and Walter happen to be such people.

I await a lengthy, indepth post involving considerable relativity and quantum field theory from Walter demonstrating his claims.

I won't hold my breath about such a thing from you...

 

[Reiku]

And how am I a crank? When someone wants me to show I can do physics, I do so. When someone PMs me and asks for an explaination on something, I do so.
When I see someone making claims they don't back up and which seem to bew in contradiction to mainstream physics, I ask for clarification. For instance, Walter has said several times now about the nature of the particles being emitted increasing the mass of the black hole. This is in contradiction to the results I've read and been taught. I'm asking for clarification, for details. Walter has yet to provide any.

You seem to think that because I'm capable of talking about graduate physics I'm showing off. No, this is what I do day in and day out, I talk about physics. I think about physics. And when I work too hard, I dream about physics. I don't claim to be more or know more than I am. I don't know research level relativity. I do know research level super gravity. I don't know any algebraic topology. I do know some algebraic geometry.

You claim to know quantum mechanics. You don't. You claim to know relativity. You don't. You claim to know vector calculus. You don't. And when I see you post something wrong, I say so. But you don't like it. And when you whine, I put you down. When Walter makes claims he can't back up, I point them out. Over on PhysOrg Ubanatuva has reduces the discussion about the LHC to claiming I'm a chatbot and Rpenner is the account of multiple people. He's unable to discuss physics so has to take the thread off course. Just like you Reiku.
You. You constantly claim to know more than you do. You constantly lie about your knowledge and accomplishments. When someone challenges me about my claims, I back up what I say.

I have a notion of scientific integrity and so when I see people making fraudulent claims about physics, I point it out. And you and Walter happen to be such people.

I await a lengthy, indepth post involving considerable relativity and quantum field theory from Walter demonstrating his claims.

I won't hold my breath about such a thing from you...

I'll take you off ignore, because it's not fair i should say something about you, and not be wise and answer back. A bit like how the cowardness fills your aura, when you go off and say things about me on a forum you know i can't reply on.

Anyway...

You are a cranck of a scientists, because you show no modest behaviour. A true scientist is modest, and doesn't try to flamefest, even if it is to get a point across. Whilst i am not clean on this totally, i can say i show more integrity than you when it comes to this. I don't intentionally search for problems, and then make a mockery of the person that stated it. There's a difference between challenge, and then challenging to raise the stakes for your own lynching of superiority.

As for the math, that's just basic. I think you misunderstand totally what Walter was saying. Your equations look not that disimilar to the Hamiltonian expression of E=Mc^2. But forget the math.

Walter said, ''And while you did say 'negative energy', not 'negative mass', the two equate.''

He's right. You never distinguished the two. Anyway, back to ignore.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You are a cranck of a scientists, because you show no modest behaviour.

You're making up your own definition of 'crank'. Modesty or lack of doesn't make you a crank. Posting BS and proclaiming it's physics does.

There's a difference between challenge, and then challenging to raise the stakes for your own lynching of superiority.

Wait, which of us posted this thread? I forget...

As for the math, that's just basic. I think you misunderstand totally what Walter was saying.

Then he should clarify. And besides, your maths is so bad, you think that $$(a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi$$. No, $$a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi = (a+ib)^{2}$$. See the difference? Seriously, this is even more basic than the maths I posted. The maths I posted someone who understands relativity can understand. The maths you just got wrong a child can see is wrong.

Your equations look not that disimilar to the Hamiltonian expression of E=Mc^2. But forget the math.

Why do you post that? You know I'll see through your nonsense. You don't know anything about Hamiltonians, because they require a grasp of things like variational principles, particularly when dealing with fields, as in relativity. You've previously demonstrated you don't understand energy in relativity by not realising the problem with summing energy in gravitational fields.

Walter said, ''And while you did say 'negative energy', not 'negative mass', the two equate.''

He's right. You never distinguished the two.

Again, why post that? I have previously explained, including given an example, of the difference between mass and energy's sign. They are NOT synomynous. Dirac uses the difference to predict the existence of antimatter. The difference between them explains the Penrose Process.

This is why I reply to your posts, you lie about your understanding all the time. You complain I lack modesty and yet you continually claim you ,know more than you do. I claim I know a bit about relativity. Why? Because I've been to lectures, sat exams and as it happens the Black Hole lecture course I wrote those notes from was a course I got a distinction in. Something I'm especially proud of.

When someone asks me for details, I provide. When I ask you, you refuse, yet you challenged me first. And now you complain I challenge you?! You initiate threads and then refuse to partake.

You are a compulsive, unashamed liar. You lie about your work, your education and I'm 99.9% sure you lied about your brother in your PM on the weekend. Something which you yourself said you'd have to be sick to lie about but it seems that way...

/edit

when you go off and say things about me on a forum you know i can't reply on.

I didn't care that you couldn't reply. You weren't part of the conversation. I was using you as a prime example of a crank who makes claims he cannot back up and who then puts his foot in it by thinking something he finds hard others find hard. Except in this case, it was multiplying out brackets. I used StevenA as an example too and I'm 100% certain he won't reply to that thread. I doubt he even reads it. I use Zephir as an example still. The fact is, if you didn't put your foot in it and make claims your brain can't cash then you wouldn't have been an example. Funny how I don't use Rpenner or BenTheMan as an example. Well no, it's not funny, because they have proven they can do the physics they say they can.

It's simple. If you make a claim which is different from verified physics, give some evidence. If you make claims about 'proving' things, give the details. If you can't and your posts imply you don't understand the details, I'll say something. If you don't like that the best recourse is to put me in my place by proving your claims.

Hear that Walter? If you think I'm wrong, give explicit details. Given you're talking about GR so much, I assume you know something about it. So it should be within your ability. If not, please explain why not.