Post by: Starlight on 29/03/2020 15:40:59
Energy is attracted to nothing because nothing has no temperature ???
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 16:23:34
Nothing can only increase :oDid you intend that to make some sort of sense?
Energy is attracted to nothing because nothing has no temperature ???
Post by: Starlight on 29/03/2020 16:29:15
Nothing can only increase :oDid you intend that to make some sort of sense?
Energy is attracted to nothing because nothing has no temperature ???
Can't you understand simplicity ? :-\
An ''empty'' point of space has the maximum gravitational potential. ALL matter would be attracted to this hypothetical point because the laws of thermodynamics require all things must naturally reach ''room temperature'' . The natural nature being gravitational potential and the long awaited answer that solves quantum mechanics .
:)
5abeb76f-81bb-4a70-84b0-8b710a2e363a.png (46.86 kB . 468x360 - viewed 8289 times)
=F(G)Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 17:36:21
An ''empty'' point of space has the maximum gravitational potential. ALL matter would be attracted to thisMatter is attracted to other matter, not to empty space.
It doesn't help that something is simple, if it is also wrong.
It might be better if you learned some stuff.
Post by: Starlight on 29/03/2020 17:45:26
Matter is attracted to other matter, not to empty space.
It doesn't help that something is simple, if it is also wrong.
It might be better if you learned some stuff.
Mass attracted to mass (Newton classical gravity) , is one affect of gravity , not a complete ''picture'' . There is also space-time curvature (Einstein modern mechanics ) and additionally which I have pointed out , there is spatial gravity .
An apple falls to the ground because the apple has less energy and inertia than the ground . Spatial field lines are curved because they have less energy per volume than spatial bodies . The linear force of gravity of the bodies curving field lines towards the mass . The Universe is expanding because the energy of the visual universe is attracted to the gravity of the unseen universe . Quite clearly you need to go learn some stuff ! :'(
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 17:56:25
additionally which I have pointed out , there is spatial gravity... which is an imaginary thing you made up.
Quite clearly you need to go learn some stuff !OK, so the first thing you need to learn is how science works.
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/03/2020 17:57:20
Darn science and its rationality. If only the world were made from fairy dust and wishes.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/03/2020 18:14:26
The natural nature
Does natural nature come from the Department of Redundancy Department?
This absolutely must be a troll account.
Post by: Starlight on 29/03/2020 19:41:01
additionally which I have pointed out , there is spatial gravity... which is an imaginary thing you made up.Quite clearly you need to go learn some stuff !OK, so the first thing you need to learn is how science works.
For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as Cambridge , your knowledge of actual physics is considerably poor !
You are practically denying a very simple fact that things reach room temperature , basic thermodynamics !
A single point in space-time that had a 0 energy level would as required by thermodynamics try to reach room temperature . All energies attracted to this single point until the equilibrium of temperature was reached .
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 19:45:18
For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as Cambridge
It isn't.
Now, what was that you were saying about poor knowledge?
Post by: The Spoon on 29/03/2020 20:23:58
Of course it is. It is thebox posting crap as per usual.The natural nature
Does natural nature come from the Department of Redundancy Department?
This absolutely must be a troll account.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2020 22:00:11
Of course it is. It is thebox posting crap as per usual.It could be some other tosser.
They all sound the same.
Post by: evan_au on 29/03/2020 22:22:07
Quote from: Starlight
E0=F(G)TheBox can't think outside the box...
Post by: The Spoon on 29/03/2020 22:52:49
Yep. Those nonsense equations are a bit of a trade mark, as is the use of English...Quote from: StarlightE0=F(G)TheBox can't think outside the box...
Post by: Starlight on 30/03/2020 11:13:04
For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as Cambridge
It isn't.
Now, what was that you were saying about poor knowledge?
''The Naked Scientists (@NakedScientists) | Twittertwitter.com › nakedscientists
Based 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 !
Post by: Starlight on 30/03/2020 11:24:54
Of course it is. It is thebox posting crap as per usual.The natural nature
Does natural nature come from the Department of Redundancy Department?
This absolutely must be a troll account.
???
How rude of you to say my work is crap !
My work is factual unlike the garbage science would like us all to believe !
My work is well liked elsewhere so your opinion is crap .
Post by: puppypower on 30/03/2020 12:05:43
An ''empty'' point of space has the maximum gravitational potential. ALL matter would be attracted to thisMatter is attracted to other matter, not to empty space.
It doesn't help that something is simple, if it is also wrong.
It might be better if you learned some stuff.
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.
Relative to space-time, since the separated masses are at highest potential, and each mass separately, curves space-time less than when the two masses has combined, this implies that the expansion of space-time is heading in the direction of higher gravitational potential. Expanded space-time, where time runs faster, is at higher potential than when time runs slow. The speed of light reference is at lowest potential since it implies time runs the slowest of all.
Ironically, with special relativity, as we increase velocity toward C, time slows, which means we are lowering potential via space-time. This is became C is the ground state of the universe.
If gravity is a force, since it acts like a force by creating pressure on matter, and the lowering of potential is hooked into the conservation of energy, what is the exothermic output of the gravitational force when the gravitational potential lowers energy? Is it dark energy? It is not going into the local space-time since slow time is at lower potential.
When a force lowers potential, for example the EM force, it gives off energy to reflect the change of potential; energy conservation. The energy output quanta released can reverse the EM force elsewhere. Isn't this what dark energy does with respect to the gravity of the universe?
One important thing that the exothermic output of the gravitational force and dark energy have in common is nobody has seen either one in the lab. Is this a coincidence or a correlation? Both will add up to the same affects.
Galaxies rotate and do not collapse, even with central black holes, because star formation and other means to lower gravitational potential are exothermic. This release of energy from the lowering of the gravitational force reverse gravity elsewhere. The affects will be opposite of what is needed for a collapse. While the excess energy that leaves the galaxy and enters space expands the galaxies relative to each other.
Dark energy is a double imaginary variable, since it cannot be measure in the lab and has no tangible source seen in the lab. The exothermic output of gravity is a single imaginary variable that does the same things but has a force source. This is an upgrade. I am sorry if it spoils the double imaginary math game engines.
There are spirial galaxies in the universe with more turns that should be, based on the time available and existing theory. If we add the exothermic output of gravity, this is not a big deal. It would reflect a very rapid star condensation occurring very early in the universe. Dark energy needs too much faith in an imaginary thing that stems from an imaginary thing. I tried t get rid of one of the imaginaries for you.
Post by: Starlight on 30/03/2020 12:15:58
An ''empty'' point of space has the maximum gravitational potential. ALL matter would be attracted to thisMatter is attracted to other matter, not to empty space.
It doesn't help that something is simple, if it is also wrong.
It might be better if you learned some stuff.
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.
Relative to space-time, since the separated masses are at highest potential, and each mass separately, curves space-time less than when the two masses has combined, this implies that the expansion of space-time is heading in the direction of higher gravitational potential. Expanded space-time, where time runs faster, is at higher potential than when time runs slow. The speed of light reference is at lowest potential since it implies time runs the slowest of all.
Ironically, with special relativity, as we increase velocity toward C, time slows, which means we are lowering potential via space-time. This is became C is the ground state of the universe.
If gravity is a force, since it acts like a force by creating pressure on matter, and the lowering of potential is hooked into the conservation of energy, what is the exothermic output of the gravitational force when the gravitational potential lowers energy? Is it dark energy? It is not going into the local space-time since slow time is at lower potential.
When a force lowers potential, for example the EM force, it gives off energy to reflect the change of potential; energy conservation. The energy output quanta released can reverse the EM force elsewhere. Isn't this what dark energy does with respect to the gravity of the universe?
One important thing that the exothermic output of the gravitational force and dark energy have in common is nobody has seen either one in the lab. Is this a coincidence or a correlation? Both will add up to the same affects.
Galaxies rotate and do not collapse, even with central black holes, because star formation and other means to lower gravitational potential are exothermic. This release of energy from the lowering of the gravitational force reverse gravity elsewhere. The affects will be opposite of what is needed for a collapse. While the excess energy that leaves the galaxy and enters space expands the galaxies relative to each other.
Dark energy is a double imaginary variable, since it cannot be measure in the lab and has no tangible source seen in the lab. The exothermic output of gravity is a single imaginary variable that does the same things but has a force source. This is an upgrade. I am sorry if it spoils the double imaginary math game engines.
There are spirial galaxies in the universe with more turns that should be, based on the time available and existing theory. If we add the exothermic output of gravity, this is not a big deal. It would reflect a very rapid star condensation occurring very early in the universe. Dark energy needs too much faith in an imaginary thing that stems from an imaginary thing. I go tried of one of the imaginaries for you.
Respect to you sir , this is the sort of post I expected on this forum ! I'll give your post some thought before I break it down and reply , great stuff to think about thanks ! :)
Post by: Starlight on 30/03/2020 12:43:05
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.
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 .
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 12:49:52
My work is well liked elsewhereGot evidence?
My work is factualNo, it's not.
Stop being silly.
Post by: Starlight on 30/03/2020 13:05:45
My work is well liked elsewhereGot evidence?My work is factualNo, it's not.
Stop being silly.
A simple yes or no answer will prove my work .
Do things reach room temperature ?
You know the answer is yes ! 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 ?
Well we know the answer is yes and this proves
Additionally mass and energy are equivalent , also proving
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:45:42
A simple yes or no answer will prove my work .No
Do things reach room temperature ?
I have been sat her for ages. I'm still significantly above room temperature.
Pluto, on their hand is rather colder.
Now that your work has been proved wrong, you can shut up about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:49:19
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 ?An empty space does not have a defined temperature, so the answer to your question is "no".
OK, so the first thing you need to learn is how science works.
The forum is run by, but does not represent, Cambridge.For a forum that supposed to represent a great university such as Cambridge
It isn't.
Now, what was that you were saying about poor knowledge?
''The Naked Scientists (@NakedScientists) | Twittertwitter.com › nakedscientists
Based 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 !
This post, for example, represents my view- and I'm ex Oxford.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2020 15:52:11
Yep. Those nonsense equations are a bit of a trade mark, as is the use of English...Yes, the evidence is certainly building up that way.
His nonsense equations here
ell we know the answer is yes and this provesstrongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.
Additionally mass and energy are equivalent , also proving
Interestingly, I see the forum had more sense than to copy the dross he wrote.
Post by: The Spoon on 30/03/2020 18:01:43
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2020 20:41:56
strongly 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.
Post by: puppypower on 31/03/2020 12:10:14
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.
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. If we let them go, they will attract each other in an attempt to lower potential. Their kinetic energy will accelerate until they meet again. All attractive forces work the same way and the acceleration of the kinetic energy reflects the potential.
As we separate the two masses, and distance increases, the strength of the attractive force between will get smaller. However, this affect is independent of the gravitational potential energy. At long distances, the initial acceleration of the two masses will be very small becuase the force is weak. However, the velocity will compound as they get closer and closer to reflect the total potential energy. There will be an acceleration of acceleration like we see with the expansion of the universe; but in the opposite direction. This is not a coincidence. The exothermic output from the lowering of gravitational potential,over long distances, will reflect as an acceleration of an acceleration, elsewhere.
If we look at space-time. When the two masses separate each will have a more limited space-time contraction around each, compared to when they combine. This is quantified by General Relativity. Since separation has higher gravitational potential and less contraction of space-time, expanded space-time is at higher potential than contracted space time, since mass, gravity and space-time correlate by GR. The black hole is a very low potential zone. It also implies the reference of the speed of light is the reference of lowest potential. This is the universal ground state. All matter tried to go there via energy output.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2020 13:08:14
Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.strongly 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.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 13:38:20
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.
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 ?
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 13:39:02
Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.strongly 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.
None science gibberish !
Post by: The Spoon on 31/03/2020 13:50:23
It is a perfect demonstration of the blind leading the blind. Starlight is a sock account and should be therefore banned from the forum.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.strongly 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.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 13:55:03
None science gibberish !
Is exactly what you've been posting.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:19:06
None science gibberish !
Is exactly what you've been posting.
NO! I've posted a new theory in a new theory section .
It is only gibberish if you do not have the ability to understand it or even discuss it with the respect it deserves .
A hypothetical point of space that was ''empty'' would have the maximum gravitational force . As you know things have to reach room temperature ! A hypothetical point that was ''empty'' would attract energies to reach room temperature . As you know energy and mass are equivalent .
People who've responded are practically denying hot passive to cold !
:oI think they are bonkers or trolls for sure .
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 14:22:28
A hypothetical point of space that was ''empty'' would have the maximum gravitational force .
If it is empty, then there is no mass or energy there. Without mass or energy, there is no gravity. Research relativity.
As you know things have to reach room temperature !
Objects only reach room temperature if they are in an environment that is at room temperature. The vacuum of space is not.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:23:58
It is a perfect demonstration of the blind leading the blind. Starlight is a sock account and should be therefore banned from the forum.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.strongly 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.
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 .
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:32:18
If it is empty, then there is no mass or energy there. Without mass or energy, there is no gravity. Research relativity.
Not true ! I additionally couldn't care less what relativity says , Einstein was a fool in my opinion .
Without matter there is nothing but gravity because the temperature of a void would be absolute zero and any energy that was ''placed'' within the void would be attracted to all of the void !
The laws of thermodynamics naturally applying , a ''single spark'' would share its energy with the entire void , the laws of thermodynamics requiring the void to reach room temperature . The unrecognised force being true gravity , the force between objects being a difference in energy levels (mass) . The Cavendish experiment demonstrating this .
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 14:37:10
Einstein was a fool in my opinion .
But you also say this...
As you know energy and mass are equivalent .
Congratulations on contradicting yourself. Relativity is what gives us mass-energy equivalence.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:45:41
So you say this...Einstein was a fool in my opinion .
But you also say this...As 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 !
I'm not sure whether you got the point or not so I'll explain further .
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 !
/tF=G
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 14:49:39
I've not contradicted myself !
Even a fool gets some things right !
If Einstein was a fool, he was a fool that got many things right. All of the effects of relativity tested so far have been found to be true.
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.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 14:55:36
There is no such thing as a "point of energy", so your scenario is nonsense.
The entire visual universe is a volume of points , there are many point energies . Infact there isn't a point with no energy as the visual universe is a whole , bodies and fields entangled as one .
That is the reason why I say a hypothetical empty point as the space is quite full .
Why do you ignore the questions ?
Because you know you'd have to agree with basic thermodynamics and hot is passive to cold ?
Additionally the start of a BH isn't nonsense .
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 15:04:10
there are many point energies
Evidence please.
the visual universe is a whole , bodies and fields entangled as one .
Evidence please.
Why do you ignore the questions ?
What question have I ignored?
hot is passive to cold
Please restate this in sensible English.
Also, I noticed that you divided by zero in reply #37. You can't do that.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:14:43
What question have I ignored?
I asked you a hypothetical question
Quote
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 .
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 15:17:26
A question that only needs your own thinking to answer !
The answer is no, because points of energy are not a thing.
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 .
This makes no mathematical sense. You can't divide by zero.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/03/2020 15:23:55
Liar!It is a perfect demonstration of the blind leading the blind. Starlight is a sock account and should be therefore banned from the forum.Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.strongly 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.
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 .
You have not posted any science to refute. So stop telling fibs about who you are pigeon.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:29:22
A question that only needs your own thinking to answer !
The answer is no, because points of energy are not a thing.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 .
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 . 0 in my equation represents a void and void constant temperature . The volume is unspecified and replaced with 0 in generalisation as we could not possibly know the void dimensions .
There is no such thing as can't , there is only interpretation .
I'll put something more familiar if it helps .
Where the T of V is 0 !
Rewording my question to you , what force divides the energy by a volume that has an absolute zero temperature ?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 15:37:03
Points of energy are a thing , have you not heard of zero point energy ?
Zero point energy is not about zero-dimensional points. So please provide actual evidence that there is such a thing as "point of energy".
There isn't a single point of space that hasn't energy as any volume whole consists of multiple points .
This is like arguing that there isn't a single point of space that doesn't have DNA because a volume containing DNA consists of multiple points.
You can divide by 0 depending what 0 represents .
No, you cannot. Try to divide anything by zero and you get nonsense results.
There is no such thing as can't
Yes there is. I can't teleport back in time just by willing it, for example.
what force divides the energy by a volume with an absolute zero temperature ?
This question makes no sense. You might as well be asking what force divides a leopard by a cheesecake.
Post by: Starlight on 31/03/2020 15:48:37
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
:)
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 15:50:02
r1=0+0=1x
That's not evidence.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/03/2020 16:05:26
And who does that nonsense equation remind you of?r1=0+0=1x
That's not evidence.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 16:06:38
And who does that nonsense equation remind you of?
He does seem more and more like the Thebox all the time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2020 17:09:50
I am new to this forum , never been here before !I don't think you lie any better than you discuss science.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/03/2020 23:34:25
Both claim that gravity is the result of electrical attraction between neutral objects:
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.
Both speak of “dots/points of energy”:
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...
Both talk about volumes having “multiple points”, which is rather strange way to phrase that:
any volume whole consists of multiple points
a volume contains multiple points
Both have posted these very similar equations with “0+0” in them, which is redundant:
r1=0+0=1x
x= 0+0=x1
Both are from the United Kingdom:
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.
Both like to use
:
The velocity between
And, this may be the clencher, both are named Steve (a link to a post made by Starlight on another forum):
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121034-gravitational-mechanics-explained/
Regards
Steve
For anyone who doesn't believe this "Complexity" person is the same as Starlight, look at this thread on the other forum:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121045-how-is-mass-divided-by-volume-to-measure-density/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-1128870
Now compare it with what Starlight posted in this thread:
what force divides the energy by a volume
Starlight is Complexity is Thebox. The jig is up.
Post by: Colin2B on 01/04/2020 07:54:05
I’m convinced
Post by: puppypower on 01/04/2020 13:24:14
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.
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 ?
The gravitational potential (energy) is an integration of the total energy, between two masses, from point A to point B. If we have two mass separated a distance d, there is a gravitational potential between them. If we incrementally move them closer by a small amount Δ, the potential decreases slightly. The force will get slightly stronger, since they are closer, but the total potential will get slightly less.
If we go the other way and start with two mass that touch, if we separate them by a small increment Δ, the potential, which is a measure of potential energy will increase. The force, which is different, from energy, will get slightly smaller.
Work = Force times Distance = Energy. Work is defined as force times distance. Work is a measure of the energy expended in applying a force to move an object. It takes work or energy to move two masses apart.This is added to the potential energy.
The force between two masses will not constant if the two masses are the only objects in empty space. A great distances the force is neatly zero. As we get closer, the force gets stronger but distance gets smaller (higher force times smaller distance). When they touch the force is strongest, but distance is zero, which multiple to zero potential energy.
What may confuse the issue is the force of gravity on the earth's surface is defined as a constant. This is an excellent approximation due to the size of the earth and any position on the surface being roughly the same proportional distance from center of gravity. But two mass separated in empty space will have a variable force. It nearly zero at infinite distance but maximized at zero distance. The acceleration due to force will also accelerate as force gets stronger with less and less distance.
This is what the universe appears to be doing, but in the opposite direction of gravity. The exothermic output from lowering gravitational potential energy, as mass gets closer and closer, cause the force to gets stronger and stronger. This makes the exothermic energy output, from lowering gravitational potential energy, get stronger and stronger as reflected in the universal accelerated expansion. Ir adds up.
If we had two masses, in empty space, separated a distant d, the center of gravity will be in empty space. The center of gravity does not superimpose either mass bur rather will superimpose empty space. The future position of highest gravitational force, maximum space-time contraction, and zero potential energy, will be in what is initially empty space. I can sort of see what you are saying. The skeptics can do the math. Their problem is separating present and future.
Let us look at that imaginary thing that is called dark energy, that was never seen the lab, which should still be in the new theory section. Dark energy appears to act strongest in the nearly empty space between galaxies instead of within galaxies where all the matter is. The universe expands relative to the galaxies more so, than within the galaxies. The impact of dark enery appears to reflect center of gravity, on a mega-scale, in empty space; future of expansion.
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
The logical assumption, based on the exothermic output if gravity, is that a type of net affect is occurring where gravitational potential energy dominates within galaxies, where mass is plentiful, while the exothermic output from gravitational potential energy lowering dominates better (net affect) where mass is thinner, such as in empty space between galaxies.
Post by: Starlight on 01/04/2020 14:27:14
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
Newton said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction , exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravity but not necessarily a different force than gravity !
As the energy increases in a body , the output of that body increases increasing the bodies surrounding density .
If d=x then
and this is a natural action because dx has less temperature than the body . The force is G . F=(G)0
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: The Spoon on 01/04/2020 15:04:33
exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravityUtter nonsense. Typical of Thebox
Post by: Starlight on 01/04/2020 16:00:35
exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravityUtter nonsense. Typical of Thebox
Energies 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 !
Post by: The Spoon on 01/04/2020 16:41:22
Utter rubbish. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand the meaning of the word exothermic Mr. Box. Maybe find a more productive use of your time than trolling with a sock account?exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravityUtter nonsense. Typical of Thebox
Energies 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 !
Post by: Starlight on 01/04/2020 16:50:11
sock account?
?????????????????
Quote
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
Of course I don't !
ω=
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2020 16:56:03
Exothermic is outwardsAs usual TheBox is not even paying attention to reality.
Get some bicarbonate of soda and mix it with vinegar. The mixture foams and expands.
But it also goes cold because the reaction is endothermic.
Post by: Starlight on 01/04/2020 17:06:41
But it also goes cold because the reaction is endothermic.
Yes , gravity is endothermic and exothermic , this being a part of enthalpy .
When something is cold it has less energy than something that is hot . The heat energy is attracted to the colder endothermic substance . The substance absorbing energies .
If ''areas'' of free space are colder than surrounding areas , these areas have to naturally attract heat energy to maintain an equilibrium within the system .
Energy being absorbed by any system or body is equally divided by the volume of the system or body
E=
=F(G) The gravitational force of a body or system being at its greatest magnitude when the system or body has less energy than surrounding systems or bodies .
Post by: The Spoon on 01/04/2020 18:59:23
endothermic and exothermic , this being a part of enthalpySo more words Thebox uses with liberal abandon but does not understand. Do you pigeon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2020 19:09:39
Post by: Kryptid on 01/04/2020 21:06:45
Post by: Starlight on 03/04/2020 12:53:20
I'm more curious as to why you tried to hide your identity. Why not just come out and tell us your were Thebox and that you changed your mind about leaving?
I'll be straight with you Krytid , this is not my first time back as a sock since ''they'' told me to leave this forum .
They told me to leave then told me to come back several times .
MY troubles started with this forum , they took me to a special forum elsewhere .
I can't explain the terror I went through , they tried to get me to kill myself and others .
These people killed April Jones indirectly . These people are part of this forum .
Post by: Colin2B on 03/04/2020 14:36:50
MY troubles started with this forum , they took me to a special forum elsewhere .These are serious accusations. We are suspending your account while we investigate.
I can't explain the terror I went through , they tried to get me to kill myself and others .
These people killed April Jones indirectly . These people are part of this forum .