« on: 02/04/2019 12:34:35 »
The existence of mass causes non-existence in space-time causes space-time to displace causes it to bend, the existence of mass occurred a particular moment at the speed of light c.
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.
How you would measure kinetic energy twice differently? kinetic energy is what energy an object contains, So what is the actual kinetic energy the object contains?You mean an object at stationary on earth has kinetic energy equals zero.No since it is in motion with the earth movement.
It would have zero kinetic energy as measured in the reference frame of Earth's surface. As measured by someone on the Sun, it would not have zero kinetic energy.
You mean an object at stationary on earth has kinetic energy equals zero?No since it is in motion with the earth movement.What do you call an object with kinetic energy equals zero?
The measured kinetic energy of an object is relative to the observer. If you measure it to be zero, then that means it is stationary in your particular reference frame. It wouldn't be zero in a different reference frame.
What do you call an object with kinetic energy equals zero?Supposing gravity extends to infinity no object is at stationary with respect to a point in space.
It isn't meaningful to say that something is moving or stationary with respect to a point in space.
Supposing gravity extends to infinity no object is at stationary with respect to a point in space.I think the OP refers to motion with respect to space.
If there is nothing else in that space, you can't know whether you are moving at a constant speed or are at rest.
Motion is relative to the observer, so whether an object is standing still or not depends on the defined reference frame.I think the OP refers to motion with respect to a point in space or kinetic energy for the object equals zero.
How mass curves space? What is the mechanism?Just to add this.
In all seriousness, I have no idea what your thread about infinity has to do with anyone else's theories.It's just my opinion and not on a personal way.It's all about what we write here what we discuss .I'm not against the forum rules.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76600.0It's obvious.No theory here is supported with logic .
And what makes you say that?
You must be speaking about your own work
Because my work is superb .
Covers just about everything …..
Think of a number line of 1 meter length it is divided into units it starts from 4 at the beginning and zero at the end.If something is an infinite distance away it cannot affect you, plain common sense.An object can't exist at infinite distance but there still zero effect of gravity for that object although there is not a place for it to obtain zero effect.
So there is non-existence of gravity at a point in space" logically gravity decreases and that has an end which the smallest number i.e the zero" but where if space is infinite where is this point of non existence of gravity ?
PS:"the smallest number" I don want to involve in negative numbers so I mean the zero.
What is the big deal, as the distance between particles tends towards infinity, gravity tends towards zero. Infinity is a conceptual number that can never be attained, so whilst g tends to zero between particles it is never reachable. Although your 64bit processor in your computer might think it has reached zero, which to all intents and purposes it has.
If something is an infinite distance away it cannot affect you, plain common sense.An object can't exist at infinite distance but there still zero effect of gravity for that object although there is not a place for it to obtain zero effect.
In principle, gravity has an infinite reach.Space is a container for every universe that might exist so it's infinite , if the universe is finite then gravity is finite .Finite universe results in finite gravity.
The universe is probably finite