0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
there are many point energies
the visual universe is a whole , bodies and fields entangled as one .
Why do you ignore the questions ?
hot is passive to cold
What question have I ignored?
IF we have a hypothetical void and we place a single point of energy within this void , the point energy by the natural laws of thermodynamics would be effectively attracted to the void as the void was a lower temperature than the point energy ?
A question that only needs your own thinking to answer !
0 in my divide is a spatial void , perhaps I should of put temperature in the equation ??0 is a volume constant when there is no matter .
Quote from: The Spoon on 31/03/2020 13:50:23Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/03/2020 13:08:14Quote from: Kryptid on 30/03/2020 20:41:56Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:52:11strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he's obviously hurting the forum more than helping it. This isn't just a matter of having some eccentric theory like many of the others here. It's complete nonsense that can be categorized as "not even wrong". As such, I would not object to warning him to shape up or ship out.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.It is a perfect demonstration of the blind leading the blind. Starlight is a sock account and should be therefore banned from the forum.Stop crying ! is this the sort of things you claim when the pressure is on science ? I am new to this forum , never been here before ! I've not noticed a single post from you about science , just weird posts saying stuff like this .
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/03/2020 13:08:14Quote from: Kryptid on 30/03/2020 20:41:56Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:52:11strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he's obviously hurting the forum more than helping it. This isn't just a matter of having some eccentric theory like many of the others here. It's complete nonsense that can be categorized as "not even wrong". As such, I would not object to warning him to shape up or ship out.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.It is a perfect demonstration of the blind leading the blind. Starlight is a sock account and should be therefore banned from the forum.
Quote from: Kryptid on 30/03/2020 20:41:56Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:52:11strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he's obviously hurting the forum more than helping it. This isn't just a matter of having some eccentric theory like many of the others here. It's complete nonsense that can be categorized as "not even wrong". As such, I would not object to warning him to shape up or ship out.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:52:11strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.Even if he isn't a sockpuppet, he's obviously hurting the forum more than helping it. This isn't just a matter of having some eccentric theory like many of the others here. It's complete nonsense that can be categorized as "not even wrong". As such, I would not object to warning him to shape up or ship out.
strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.
Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:14:43A question that only needs your own thinking to answer !The answer is no, because points of energy are not a thing.Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:14:430 in my divide is a spatial void , perhaps I should of put temperature in the equation ??0 is a volume constant when there is no matter .This makes no mathematical sense. You can't divide by zero.
Points of energy are a thing , have you not heard of zero point energy ?
There isn't a single point of space that hasn't energy as any volume whole consists of multiple points .
You can divide by 0 depending what 0 represents .
There is no such thing as can't
what force divides the energy by a volume with an absolute zero temperature ?
Zero point energy is not about zero-dimensional points. So please provide actual evidence that there is such a thing as "point of energy".
r1=0+0=1x
Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:48:37r1=0+0=1xThat's not evidence.
And who does that nonsense equation remind you of?
I am new to this forum , never been here before !
The mechanics of gravity is : The positive and negative charge of matter is attracted to other positive and negative charges of other matter .
Gravitational mass is directly proportional to the attraction of positivity and negativity of matter to any other positivity and negativity of matter.
IF we have a hypothetical void and we place a single point of energy within this void
Divide a dot of energy by a piece of string, and the dot becomes as long as the piece of string...
any volume whole consists of multiple points
a volume contains multiple points
x= 0+0=x1
That's an impossibility as from the UK I can observe the Suns angle and path , the telemetry not seemingly inline with the equator .
Now that is the reason I do not go the doctors, don't get me wrong the doctor was a nice chap, but a leaflet , really?I think the UK doctors surgeries need psychologists in them, a doctor is not a psychologist, there is no bloody point in going to see a doctor if your mind is not functioning.
is a directional tag a to b .
The velocity between is unaltered unless traversing through a medium
RegardsSteve
what force divides the energy by a volume
Quote from: puppypower on 31/03/2020 12:10:14Quote from: Starlight on 30/03/2020 12:43:05Quote from: puppypower on 30/03/2020 12:05:43A lump of mass, at maximum distance from another lump of mass has the highest gravitational potential per uint of mass. The gravitational potential lowers as matter get closer and closer. Force, like energy, goes from higher to lower potential. In the case of gravity, the center of gravity of the two lumps of mass, at maximum potential, could be located in empty space. Hello Puppypower , can we please start with this section ?You explain a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has the highest gravitational potential . I personally see that the totally opposite , a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has 0 gravitational potential as it would be beyond the gravity influence of the other mass . However , this depends on what you mean exactly by a maximum distance ? If you mean within an inertia reference frame then I still disagree with the highest gravitational potential . The mass would have the highest force potential in a collision . By gravity potential I am referring to magnitude , the gravity strength i.e the earth has a stronger gravity than the moon because the mass is greater . Can you clarify that which I have questioned please so we can be sure we can understand each other ?Thanks . Say we start with two masses that touch each other. As we separate the two masses their gravitational potential, relative to each other, increases. OK , I think I understand what you are saying although I wouldn't say the gravitational potential increases . The event you described to me is saying an impact force increase and a speed increase is between the masses . The gravity force weakening . However , I think you are saying the speed is and force increase is the gravitational potential . E=m*speed^2 ?What do you mean by contraction ?
Quote from: Starlight on 30/03/2020 12:43:05Quote from: puppypower on 30/03/2020 12:05:43A lump of mass, at maximum distance from another lump of mass has the highest gravitational potential per uint of mass. The gravitational potential lowers as matter get closer and closer. Force, like energy, goes from higher to lower potential. In the case of gravity, the center of gravity of the two lumps of mass, at maximum potential, could be located in empty space. Hello Puppypower , can we please start with this section ?You explain a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has the highest gravitational potential . I personally see that the totally opposite , a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has 0 gravitational potential as it would be beyond the gravity influence of the other mass . However , this depends on what you mean exactly by a maximum distance ? If you mean within an inertia reference frame then I still disagree with the highest gravitational potential . The mass would have the highest force potential in a collision . By gravity potential I am referring to magnitude , the gravity strength i.e the earth has a stronger gravity than the moon because the mass is greater . Can you clarify that which I have questioned please so we can be sure we can understand each other ?Thanks . Say we start with two masses that touch each other. As we separate the two masses their gravitational potential, relative to each other, increases.
Quote from: puppypower on 30/03/2020 12:05:43A lump of mass, at maximum distance from another lump of mass has the highest gravitational potential per uint of mass. The gravitational potential lowers as matter get closer and closer. Force, like energy, goes from higher to lower potential. In the case of gravity, the center of gravity of the two lumps of mass, at maximum potential, could be located in empty space. Hello Puppypower , can we please start with this section ?You explain a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has the highest gravitational potential . I personally see that the totally opposite , a mass at a maximum distance apart from another mass has 0 gravitational potential as it would be beyond the gravity influence of the other mass . However , this depends on what you mean exactly by a maximum distance ? If you mean within an inertia reference frame then I still disagree with the highest gravitational potential . The mass would have the highest force potential in a collision . By gravity potential I am referring to magnitude , the gravity strength i.e the earth has a stronger gravity than the moon because the mass is greater . Can you clarify that which I have questioned please so we can be sure we can understand each other ?Thanks .
A lump of mass, at maximum distance from another lump of mass has the highest gravitational potential per uint of mass. The gravitational potential lowers as matter get closer and closer. Force, like energy, goes from higher to lower potential. In the case of gravity, the center of gravity of the two lumps of mass, at maximum potential, could be located in empty space.
In terms of the new and improved theory of dark energy being the exothermic output of gravity, GR, as written by Einstein, does not even take into account dark energy. Rather the original only deals with mass and stuff we can see in the lab. It is also consistent with energy conservation
exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravity
Quote from: Starlight on 01/04/2020 14:27:14exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravityUtter nonsense. Typical of Thebox
Quote from: The Spoon on 01/04/2020 15:04:33Quote from: Starlight on 01/04/2020 14:27:14exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravityUtter nonsense. Typical of TheboxEnergies are ''emitted'' outwards ! Gravity is an ''inwards'' force Exothermic is outwards Expansion is outwards The only nons ence around here is you none science posts !
sock account?
In thermodynamics, the term exothermic process (exo- : "outside") describes a process or reaction that releases energy from the system to its surroundings, usually in the form of heat, but also in a form of light (e.g. a spark, flame, or flash), electricity (e.g. a battery), or sound (e.g. explosion heard when burning hydrogen). Its etymology stems from the Greek prefix έξω (exō, which means "outwards") and the Greek word θερμικός (thermikόs, which means "thermal").[1
Exothermic is outwards