0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Starlight on 30/03/2020 11:24:54My work is well liked elsewhereGot evidence?Quote from: Starlight on 30/03/2020 11:24:54My work is factualNo, it's not.Stop being silly.
My work is well liked elsewhere
My work is factual
A simple yes or no answer will prove my work .Do things reach room temperature ?
Therefore a hypothetical ''empty'' single point in the universe would by the natural laws of thermodynamics be required to reach room temperature ! Yes or no ?
OK, so the first thing you need to learn is how science works.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 19:45:18Quote from: Starlight on 29/03/2020 19:41:01For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as CambridgeIt isn't.Now, what was that you were saying about poor knowledge?''The Naked Scientists (@NakedScientists) | Twittertwitter.com › nakedscientistsBased at Cambridge University, we make science radio programmes for the BBC and other broadcasters and host a website and podcast. Cambridge UK. ... The Naked Scientists''That certainly looks like it reads Cambridge to me !
Quote from: Starlight on 29/03/2020 19:41:01For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as CambridgeIt isn't.Now, what was that you were saying about poor knowledge?
For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as Cambridge
Yep. Those nonsense equations are a bit of a trade mark, as is the use of English...
ell we know the answer is yes and this proves Additionally mass and energy are equivalent , also proving
strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.
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.
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.
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: 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.
None science gibberish !
Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 13:39:02None science gibberish !Is exactly what you've been posting.
A hypothetical point of space that was ''empty'' would have the maximum gravitational force .
As you know things have to reach room temperature !
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.
If it is empty, then there is no mass or energy there. Without mass or energy, there is no gravity. Research relativity.
Einstein was a fool in my opinion .
As you know energy and mass are equivalent .
So you say this...Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:32:18Einstein was a fool in my opinion .But you also say this...Quote from: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:19:06As you know energy and mass are equivalent . Congratulations on contradicting yourself. Relativity is what gives us mass-energy equivalence.
I've not contradicted myself ! Even a fool gets some things right !
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 ?I am saying the mechanism of this is that the void is attracting the energy !
There is no such thing as a "point of energy", so your scenario is nonsense.