Leaderboard

On some forums, banned or (temporarily) suspended users get identified by their usernames being in a different colour, being struck through or their "title" ("Lepton" etc) being changed (e.g. to "suspended" or "banned"). On the old version of the forum software here, the username was visible but was no longer a link to the user and their posts. (Which was annoying because it made it hard to find old posts - to identify a sock-puppet, for example). Now we have nothing telling us that a user is banned (unless you follow the banned users thread, or a mod posts in the thread(s) they were posting in) so people may keep trying to discuss something with someone who is gone. If there is a configuration option to display the banned status, it would be useful.

He is right you know.

Thankfully the world is full of people much brighter and smarter then yourself, who are able to accept the scientific evidence and methodology, and reject the interjections of nonsense you chose to inject into various threads. Liar liar pants on fire. Agreed...It does one good to have a hearty laugh on occasions: A shame though that you are the butt of that laughter.

Paranoiadolia: when you think the images you're imagining are out to get you.

The desire was to clarify not to cloud. Alas, we can’t always get what we want. No worries

! Moderator Note This has been asked and answered, and so I am closing the thread. Ausguerila, in future, please note that we aren’t going to indulge you in make believe. Pigs could fly if they had wings and hollow bones. However, they have neither, and so there’s hardly any point in discussing their potential air speed velocity. Catch my drift?

Douglas Adams would be proud of you.

New evidence? And what about existing evidence?

Put two hosepipe ends protruding in a bag and one outside end is connected to a tap. What's the chances of a short jet of water coming out the other bit of pipe?

This question should end with, "... how long will the doctor spend in jail after I sue him/her for all he/she is worth?"

Well I guess a magical fairy could fly up the penis and reattach them...

Many? Of course you do. After all, they make sense to you because you thought of them. Go on then.

This threshold is about 100th the Earth mass. And the lifetime at that size would be about 1044 years. For a black hole to evaporate in less than a second, its mass would have to be about 200 tons.

I’m all for it. I’d add pink color coding for racists and unicorn signs for crackpots.

There are no forces in GR so it is more like the latter.

This is a good explanation of the equations of GR: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ A cloud of "test particles" is used to explain the basic meaning of the equations and describe how gravity, tidal forces, expansion, etc work.

Please elaborate about what I underlined. Maybe you have a link ...

No.

What?! Your incoherent drivel is starting to devour Relativity and BB now?

So you are defining distance in terms of a basic unit of time? Rather like Planck units, where the Planck distance is defined that distance light travels in one Planck time. (Actually, its the other way round, but no matter.) Normalisation is a mathematical process, so you can't use it to get rid of mathematics. You still need maths to produce a testable theory. It is providing the information in external document that is against the rules. And can you show that this reproduces the forces that we observe? You couldn't run that simulation without maths. And the Earth is not, to my knowledge, expanding. Which seems to be a fundamental flaw even at the conceptual level. Such as? Are you going to build some practical device based on these ideas? (That could be protected by patent.) But you will need a bit more than these vague concepts.

Not at all. Just that there is no legal protection for ideas so claiming ownership is a bit futile. If your idea is any good you will get credit.

I am thrilled to report that I found a source of all entropy in the universe - it’s my 2 year old.

Side note: I am always bemused/amused when people make claims of "ownership" to ideas like this. I mean, obviously, you have copyright in the document but there is no protection for ideas. And, generally, no one is going to want to steal (or even be associated with) ideas posted on a science forum. To the content! Line 19 (thanks for numbering the lines it makes it easier to reference; but doesn't get round the fact you are breaking the rules) (Hmmm... the line numbers get changed when copied. Weird.) 1. Surely you mean the "minimum" distance. If that is the maximum distance and is based on time being quantum, then there are no measurable distances between 0 and this maximum. 2. There is no evidence that time is quantised and your reference for this (the only reference) is to an unpublished work by someone called Egerton. I would comment further, but I'm afraid the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me. You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). But then you try and apply this to the Earth, where we have a set of particles closely bound together by interatomic forces. I think you need to study the difference between a "gas" and a "solid". Finally, there is not very much maths in this short article. What testable predictions does this model make that would allow it to be compared with GR and/or the real world?

You mean, build a star !? Apart from the fact it would be impractical, we don't need to: we have one. The challenge is getting the energy from there to Earth effectively. The same problem would face any space-based generation system. Centrifugal force throw things apart, so I'm not sure what you are thinking here...

Now it's -1? Good! We are making progress from yesterday: But before we can talk about the Zero-energy Universe, we need to get rid of this 1 and -1 terms. I know what you mean but we cannot assign a numerical value with no unit. In this case we shouldn't assign any numerical value because we just don't know it. So let's not complicate things and just say this hypothesis says (remember that there is no evidence for this) that "the amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly cancelled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity." Just like in the wiki. This confuses me a bit because you are the only one here quoting numbers and others are explaining that you shouldn't. Also numbers exist. You are using letters to express that numbers don't exist. Of course they are made by humans and are not physical objects but neither is happiness, communism, lies or higher education.

Sounds like nonsense.

The statement that inverses are unique is not a postulate, but a theorem. You have to break more than that statement to get things to work. For the proof that 1 = (-0): n = (-0) * n/(-0) = (-0) * n, right?

If you jump into any vehicle that is moving at a great velocity relative to you, you will likely die rather horribly as you strike surfaces. If you board a train while it is not moving and it accelerates, you accelerate with it and you gain momentum relative to the earth but equal to that of the train(as a function of mass of course). If you jump up your momentum will remain the same. If you jump up while the train is accelerating, the train will gain momentum relative to you... You might again strike a surface... Although probably not fatally. Motion is relative! Rotational and orbital motion are self referencing and the momentum is angular momentum.

A couple of points: The Supermassive BH at the center of the galaxy is is pretty much through absorbing matter. It cleared out the vast majority of the close-by stuff long ago. The rest of the material went into orbit around that Black hole. After you get any distance from a black hole, it gravity behaves just like that of any other object. If we look deep into the universe ( and thus into the past), we see very bright objects originally named Quasars, they turned out to be young galaxies where the Black holes at their centers were still gobbling up matter. The high speed collisions between the stuff being pulled into the BH caused the region around to to emit a lot of high energy radiation. If our BH was still actively absorbing matter like this, our galaxy would be presently irradiated to point that life would be impossible. Even if it was absorbing matter, it could not spew dark matter. The difference between DM and "normal matter" is that DM does not interact with light or electromagnetically in any way. It only strong interaction it participates in is gravity. Since it is gravity that prevents escape from the event horizon of a black hole, DM would be no more capable of escape than normal matter. Our galaxy is not expanding. It is be held together by the mutual gravitation attraction of it components. Dark matter comes into play in that the visible matter isn't enough to hold the galaxy together against the rate at which it spins. Dark matter come into play by providing the additional gravity needed to hold the galaxy together. To do this job in a way that is consistent with how stars are measured orbiting the galaxy, DM has to have a certain type of distribution, which is pretty evenly spread out through the galaxy. If DM were being produced at the center of the galaxy, then it would be much denser there and thin out as you moved outward. This would produce a much different rotation profile for the galaxy than what we observe. Another point that should be made is that sometimes people make too much out of the "supermassive" part of supermassive black hole. Yes, they are massive in terms of a typical star (The SMBH at the center of our galaxy is some 4 million times more massive than our Sun), but it quite small compared to the mass of the galaxy itself( 5.8 x 1011 times the mass of the sun or 145,000 times more massive than the SMBH at its center). So when it comes to the overall gravitational effect of the galaxy, it is quite a small player.

For example, using the golf drive example, one can do a quick and dirty estimate of how much further the ball would travel when hit East vs West: Assume the ball leaves a tee located at the equator* at a 45° angle to the ground at a velocity of 42.4264... m/s ( I chose this value because it makes both the horizontal and vertical velocity component 30 m/s and would result in a ~200 yd drive over a level surface) Hitting the ball East would add 30 m/s to the 463 m/s due the Earth's rotation relative to its center, which would bring the centripetal acceleration up 0.0381 m/s2 This would be subtracted from the acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2 to give a net effect of 9.7618m/s2. Ignoring air friction, it would take this net downward acceleration 3.0732 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball, and it will take another 3.0732 sec for it to hit the ground. total flight time of 6.1464 sec, during which it is traveling horizontally at 30m/sec and will cover a distance of 184.39 m or 201.65 yd. Hitting the ball to the West subtracts 30 m/s from the balls speed relative to the Earth's center, though it will still be moving Eastward at 433 m/s . This cause the centripetal acceleration to be slightly less, at 0.29396m/s2 . Subtracting this from the acceleration due to gravity and you get a net of 9.7706m/s2. It takes this acceleration 3.0704 sec to stop the upward rise of the ball and results in a total flight time of 6.1409 sec, during which the ball has traveled 184.23 m or 201.47 yd This makes a difference in the length of the two drives of 0.18 yds or ~6 1/2 inches**. Show me a golfer who's stroke is so consistent that he can hit the ball 200 yd and maintain less than a 7 in difference in the distance from drive to drive, and I've have to wonder why he isn't playing in the PGA * Placing the tee at the equator gives the greatest difference in the length of the paths. Moving towards the poles reduces the centrifugal effect. **In reality the difference would be even smaller. To get a more accurate answer involves invoking orbital mechanics to determine the exact path of the balls relative to the Earth's surface. Doing so gives a answer that is under a 5 in. difference.

Why do you think someone must have created it? Why do you think it must have a purpose? The galaxies were formed when clouds of gas collapsed, due to gravity, and formed stars when the density became great enough to cause fusion.

I suspect the answer is 'never'. If the cost is too great to bear by the state, then perhaps a better solution would be to sign an SSMSUC (Stop Supplying Medical Services Unless Compensated). The state should be under no obligation to spend money it doesn't have, but it should not take on the role of making the decision that a person should die at a certain time regardless of their ability to pay for services.

How exactly would you define "near infinite"? That sounds a lot like "a little bit pregnant".

The topic is god and it has nothing to do with me being religious. For the question to get answered first one should try to recognize what it could be. My whole point is that the only "supernatural" could exist is the state of physically nothing. It is "outside" of the realm of Nature. It not even has information. Anything/everything exist in proportion to this state. Interestingly you can recognizie its functions in space time. The physical reference point with-in I can recognize something. The "thing" gives the moment of existence, in present time, to everything. Ever since anything exist, it has at least measurable space and time of existence. Did I just say God is Nothing... At least basic information... The origine of Consciousness maybe... In proportion to 0 the starting evolution of space time could be sensed as a singular event specially if it is c2...

So because the numbers support my argument it means that numbers are no longer significant. I see.

Nope. The numbers show we would expect to see a difference. Since we don't see a difference this proves I am correct.

That is not the answer I am looking for. This would be after the hypothetical bullet to the head of everyone who was involved.

This is explosive evidence. The fact that there is no difference between hitting the ball East vs West proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no rotation. Let us not forget that in this world of GPS tracking a difference of 6-7 inches would be clearly evident in golfing statistics. It seems I do have the numbers to back up my argument after all. The atomic clock running at different rates is very likely entirely due to altitude alone. Again, you are introducing unnecessary factors and not observing Occam's Razor.