[Starlight (OP)]

My work is well liked elsewhere

Got evidence?

My work is factual

No, 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

[Bored chemist]

A simple yes or no answer will prove my work .

Do things reach room temperature ?

No
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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

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 !

The forum is run by, but does not represent, Cambridge.
This post, for example, represents my view- and I'm ex Oxford.

[Bored chemist]

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 proves

Additionally mass and energy are equivalent , also proving

strongly suggest starlight should be banned asa sockpuppet.

Interestingly, I see the forum had more sense than to copy the dross he wrote.

[The Spoon]

Indeed, his posts comprise idiotic nonsense that are only posted to get attention. A bit sad really. It is a sock account and the OP should be banned.

[Kryptid]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.

[Starlight (OP)]

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 ?

[Starlight (OP)]

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.

Teh mutual back slapping society with Puppypower isn't good for the forum either.

None science gibberish !

[The Spoon]

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

None science gibberish !

Is exactly what you've been posting.

[Starlight (OP)]

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 !

I think they are bonkers or trolls for sure .

[Kryptid]

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

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.

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 .

[Starlight (OP)]

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 .

[Kryptid]

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

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 !

/t

F=G

[Kryptid]

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

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 .