Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The graviton travels with the photon, due to the fact that the graviton is affected by gravity, this is why light bends near a strong gravitational fields, not a curvature of space time.The trajectories of photons and gravitons also bend in regions of spacetime which are curved.
Gravity, can't really create hyper gravity. Hyper gravity,, is a state caused by spacetime itself.Hi flamer - You need to pick up a physics book sometime and start reading. Start here to see why this last post of yours is so wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergravity
How does gravity make hyper gravity ?Hyper gravity is simply the state where the force of gravity is greater than the force of gravity at the earth's surface. Sol if you were to sit in a rocket accelerating at a rate of 2 g's then you'd be experiencing hyper gravity. The gravitational field of any of the gas giants has hyper gravity.
Paul Anthony Weston asked the Naked Scientists:A spherically shaped planet represents the minimum amount of energy that the body can have. If the shape is otherwise then any action taken by gravity will act to reduce the amount of energy and that means driving toward the shape of a sphere.
Why are planets round?
What do you think?
...but surely there would still be energy in the Universe; some +ve and some –ve?Who's to say. That does not have the status of a universally accepted fact as of yet.
2. Would I not be right in thinking that accepting the Big Bang theory does not necessarily mean accepting that the Universe came from nothing?That's correct. Consider the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. I don't know it that well but I believe that it postulates the existence of matter before the big bang phase. You'd have to look this up to be certain. I haven't studied this theory yet.
GPS doens'n't need relativity theory,Another sign of ignorance. Little does this flamer know, when the system was placed in orbit there was, effectively, a switch that when thrown takes relativity into account. The fact is that the system didn't work until that switch was thrown - More evidence of this flamers massive ignorance.
Hi there and thanks for the replies.I am a newbie to scientific forums.Howdy, and welcome to the forum. And you're welcome.
I stand corrected as my statement was incorrect.You made a lot of statements. Which ones do you now recognize as being wrong?
What do you mean by in space. I don't know you and therefore I don't know anything about you so let me ask a few questions to get things going.
gravity in space applies to the orbits and satellites in general.
Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.[
What exactly is your educational background? Have you ever studied physics or Newton's theory of gravity? Do you know what physicists are referring to when they define and use the term gravity?
My statement is now that,gravity in space and us being pulled to the earth are not the same thing.
I have figured out the answer to many of my own questions, ...Which questions of yours are you referring to and what was your answer to them?
You've got it wrong. A larger body doesn't simply exert a force on the smaller body. The smaller body also exerts a force on the larger body. This is the kind of thing Newton referred to as his third law "Wherever there is an action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."
...but cant explain why bigger masses attract smaller.im sure I will know soon.
Why? Pushing and pulling has no meaning when you're referring to the force of gravity. It only applies to what are referred to as "contact forces" which gravity is not one. What led you to such an idea?
maybe if I changed my theory to 'we are being pushed down and not pulled down'.
No. Very far from it in fact. To "push" something means that you apply a force to the surface of an object and direct the force in the direction which points into the body. Therefore when you're pushing something you're increasing the stress inside the body. One example of something being pushed is a car. Go to the back of a car which is in neutral. Apply a force to the surface of the rear bumper in the direction pointing from rear to front.
...is this a more suitable statement?
throw everything away with'smart' for its name.That's the worst advice I've seen this week. Getting a smart TV has saved me a lot of money and made entertainment regarding TV and movies easier and I get a great deal more out of it.
It's all agenda 21!!
these kind of tv's have camera's installed!
I always believe in looking at data to verify things for myself. I had up until recently thought that instead of the universe expanding more and more rapidly it was actually slowing down. So I looked at the data and did my own calculations using a logical approach and in fact found the theory of increasing expansion velocity 100% valid. I had been looking at the data the wrong way round which is easy to do when the data goes backward in time. This means that the universe is highly likely to have originated from a source that may or may not have been singular but it strongly indicates a big bang event. You can determine this for yourself by properly analyzing the redshift data. Things can work out to be right even if counter-intuitive. If you feel as you do then put the evidence together and have it peer reviewed. It is no use just laughing at professionals because in the end the laugh is on you.That's part of the scientific method. It's something our new resident child-flamer doesn't grasp. However was there any real doubt as to the accuracy of the statement? Being a physicist I know how careful scientists are in their work and what goes into making that kind of a statement. At first the idea was put out there as what follows from observation. However it took a while for physicists to fall in line and accept it because they too don't simply accept it because someone tells them too. It's very clear that the child-flamer has no clue about that part of the scientific method. Like everyone who uses the term "indoctrinate" in a forum discussion he too is extremely ignorant about what science is or how it's done. I recommend ignoring the child-flamer. He's no good for the forum and responding to him will only make him want to stay and flame those who disagree with him.
still another enormous good laugh!I don't know what your goal in saying things like that is but the more you do the more I can see how little you understand of science, especially the Big Bang Theory. It's readily clear by the way you speak of it as if you were a child. Physicists in this forum such as JP and myself have many years experience dealing with people who act like you. In all cases, in the end you have all contributed nothing to the forum other than to waste everyone's time. In fact it's been clear from the start that your real problem is with scientists themselves. Jealousy I would guess.
just a cop out,Nope. It's physics, whether you're able to understand him or not, he's correct.
Pmb ,,since you seem to be the all knowing God of physics,,You don't need to start insulting me. If you are unable to take criticism of you ideas then you shouldn't post them.
You will not get the method calling me a liar.So what? From what you've written it's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I can only say, that the atom I get, is from another dimension.What a load of bs! Total nonsense people. Victor thinks that everyone here is an idiot. You'd have to be in order to accept anything he claims.
The reason there are different type of gravitational forces,, are due to their size and strength.That is an invalid reason for claiming that there are different types of forces since different “types of gravitational force” has no relationship to different sizes or strengths. BTW – there is no difference between the term “size” and “strength” of a gravitational field since they’re used as synonyms. In reality no physicist ever uses the qualifier “size” when referring to a gravitational field.
The Ug B/spacetime (universal gravity) would have a different type of force and strength, due to the amount of mass it has.What’s the “B” supposed to mean? There’s no reason to start creating your own terminology. It only serves to confuse the subject.
Gravity, is broken down from the Universal Level, downward, to the planetary level. It's just how strong, how much mass they hold. How our solar system rotates,, is a different type of force, than on the galactic scale.Nonsense.
The Hyper (hidden) force,, that is extremely easy. A force that holds gravity, in a hyper state,, that (will) in time, close in, with the force of Ug B/Spacetime rushing in with it.More nonsense.
If you displace spacetime, ,Meaningless. There’s no such thing as “displacing spacetime.”
(Remember one thing,, a *Theory* is not scientific fact.You’re misusing the term “theory.” When someone says “This theory is a scientific fact” it means that there is a massive amount of experimental data confirming the theory and none contradicting it. Please look up the term “theory” in a dictionary.
Gen. Relativity is wrong.I disagree. There has never been an observation which contradicts GR.
As proof of this after the Big Bang the first force to separate was gravity. The universe didn’t cool enough for atoms to form for 380,000 years, if GR was correct gravity would have formed a big dimple in space ...Unless you define the term "big dimple in space" its meaningless. Until/unless you define it I'm going to assume that you're speaking of a gravitational extremal. If you're liking it to spacetime curvature then you're confusing spacetime curvature with the gravitational force. Contrary to what you may think they are not the same thing.
...during that time when atoms formed they would have moved toward the center of this dimple.Regardless of what a "big dimple" is, there's no basis for such an assumption.
This didn’t happen atoms spread out and formed everywhere creating galaxies throughout space.So what? You haven't show there to be a contradiction anywhere.
GR is great for math in certain situations but thinking that spaces dimpled at sources of gravity is incorrect.You're the one who came up with this "dimple" idea. Not Einstein.
Scientists know what I'm talking about.Nonsense. I myself am a well educated physicist with over two decades of experience and know as a fact that what you wrote above is incoherent nonsense. I KNOW what you said is nonsense so your claim that scientists know what you means is a lie or your deluding yourself.
Method to obtain solid matter of other solid matter.
With an experiment I managed to get matter of another matter in a vacuum.
I'm not transmuting atoms.
I open a hole in the vacuum and get atoms.
An experiment is an orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, refuting, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis.
I'm not a scientist just to say off the bat. Everything i will say is from personal and speculation.You didn't think that you were the first one to notice that, did you?
I have a theory that everyone experiences time a different rate and not at the exactly 1 second per second. The logic behind it is based off personal experience. I feel I experience time slightly faster mentally and physically.
This has long been known to be true. However you're confusing the notions of physical time and subjective time. Physical time is that which is measure with a clock. That's why the time it takes for a ball to fall 1 meter is the same for everyone who measures it. However subjective time is that which is perceived by an individual and is thus the different rates of personal time is not a physical phenomena but a psychological one.The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events: in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later," which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for an individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is not measurable. I can, indeed, associate numbers with events, in such a way that a greater number is associated with the later event than with the earlier one; but the nature of this association may be quite arbitrary. This association I can define by means of a clock by comparing the order of events furnished by the clock with the order the given series of events. We understand by a clock something which provides a series of events which can be counted, and which has other properties of which we shall speak later.I recommend ignoring that comment about pot.
my basis is that we are not being pulled down!!!Do you know how a physicist would define the terms "push" and "pull" and therefore why your comment makes no sense? I highly recommend that you look them up in a dictionary.
Web cams are very cheap and normally you don't need a high end camera for this job.
I have a little Logitec webcam that does a very good job.
I works for me, have you tried the mouse adjustment in the control panel and has the appropriate driver for the mouse been loaded ?.I just realized that it doesn't always fail to do this.
I have a LOGITECH M205 mouse.
You could try running this it seems to fix most problems.
http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/26512-dism-fixing-component-store-corruption-windows-8-a.html