[Kryptid]

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

What question have I ignored?

I asked you a hypothetical question

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 .

[Kryptid]

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.

[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.

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 .

Liar!
You have not posted any science to refute. So stop telling fibs about who you are pigeon.

[Starlight (OP)]

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 ?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

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

 

[Kryptid]

r1=0+0=1x

That's not evidence.

[The Spoon]

r1=0+0=1x

That's not evidence.

And who does that nonsense equation remind you of?

[Kryptid]

And who does that nonsense equation remind you of?

He does seem more and more like the Thebox all the time.

[Bored chemist]

I am new to this forum , never been here before !

I don't think you lie any better than you discuss science.

[Kryptid]

Other than posting meaningless pictures and using English words in an unconventional manner, I have found quite a few other similarities between Starlight and Thebox:

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 :

is a directional tag a to b .

The velocity between is unaltered unless traversing through a medium

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.

[Colin2B]

Nice bit of detective work @Kryptid
I’m convinced

[puppypower]

Δ

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.

[Starlight (OP)]

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


74d1da0f-3f1a-4c1a-8551-3446f23a5473.png (8.79 kB . 375x289 - viewed 3476 times)

[The Spoon]

exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravity

Utter nonsense. Typical of Thebox

[Starlight (OP)]

exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravity

Utter 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 !

[The Spoon]

exothermic expansion being the opposite reaction to gravity

Utter 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 !

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?

[Starlight (OP)]

sock account?

??

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=

[Bored chemist]

Exothermic is outwards

As 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.