elfmotat

"Voltage" or "potential difference" means the energy per unit charge difference between two points in an electric field. There is no electric field here. Dividing by charge doesn't give you a potential difference, it gives you energy per charge. I don't know how else to say it.

This isn't an electrostatics problem! You can't just divide by charge! Dividing by charge just gives you energy per charge! There's a gravitational potential, which you get by diving the potential energy by the mass m. There isn't any electrostatic potential in Schwarzschild spacetime. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. As far as there being no stable particles heavier than a proton, what about, for example, a helium atom?

The issue is that they are nonsensical. As in, they don't make any sense. You pulled them out of a foul-smelling orifice.

The left hand side of that equation only applies when the gravitational field is approximately constant. The right hand side only applies to nonrelativistic bodies. Since we're discussing black holes we need to take into account relativity. The factor 1/2 comes from the series expansion of the relativistic energy: [math]E= \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}= mc^2+ \frac{1}{2}mv^2+ \frac{3}{8} \frac{mv^4}{c^2}+ \frac{5}{16} \frac{mv^6}{c^4}+...[/math] when v is much smaller than c (i.e. when things are nonrelativistic) all of the terms after mv2/2 effectively go to zero. Okay, looks good so far. This is just plain wrong. The new factor comes from the metric and it has nothing at all to do with Humpty's mass. Okay, looks good. You shouldn't say it is equivalent to gamma, because it's not really except very superficially. Just because they both have square roots in the denominator doesn't mean they are equivalent. The factor of 2 here comes out of the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric itself. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anti-matter. I have no idea where you got that idea from. This makes absolutely no sense. Dividing by "# of nucleons" simply gives you "energy per nucleon." You can't just divide the units by e - this isn't an electrostatics problem! Talking about this in terms of volts makes literally zero sense. Like Endy says, you're just mixing and matching equations together without any real understanding of what they mean. The first one is the Lorentz factor. The second one only applies to non-moving things in Schwarzschild spacetime, and the third one is made up nonsense. I count four things you made up: "This equation can be solved for any of the terms, opening a new window into the world we live in." The "Rosetta Equation." The voltage bunk. The antimatter bunk.​ There are members here who are very knowledgeable on the subject of GR. It's not so easy to fool us with nonsense equations. The latter half of your post is quite obviously speculative hokum.

His velocity is irrelevant though. The point is that he falls in, isn't it? A BH as small as the one you're considering (with the mass of Earth) would only be about the size of a small coin, so Humpty will be torn apart by large tidal forces before he even reaches the event horizon. His remnants will fall through and add to its mass.

I think you're on to something.

What does his initial potential have to do with anything? It's difficult to reassemble him because he fell into a black hole, and he can't come back out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

If you say so. Whenever I saw the words "moduli" or "unparticle" I chose the other answer. snarXiv seems to like moduli spaces for some reason.

Well done.

Too many good ideas?

That's a lot of mushrooms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplygin_gas

Let me show you what you said: Strange interpreted this to mean: You did not correct him. Instead, the only relevant reply you gave was this: And since I have no idea what that means, I assumed that Strange's interpretation was correct. I merely restated Strange's interpretation, albeit with slightly different wording. So if that's not what you meant, then perhaps now would be a good time to clarify. I think this is an issue of communication. You're using convoluted nonstandard language and it's causing confusion.

That's pretty good. Apparently I'm decent at their game too:

Good point. Notice how every post in this thread has a different interpretation of what the OP means. There are suggestions of creationism, outdated models or models with limited domain of validity, and crackpottery. They're not all the same thing, so we should't treat them as the same thing.

Post your favorite stuff from viXra (or similar). I like this one, where the author solves two Millennium Prize problems in just five pages. I'm also a fan of this one, where the Goldbach conjecture is proven by induction in just two pages. (For those of you unaware, viXra is a pre-print archive similar to arXiv, except they have zero restrictions on who can post what. Whereas arXiv requires affiliation with a university or an endorsement from an established user of the site, and will reject obviously wrong papers (which is pretty much a bare minimum standard), with viXra everyone has free-reign! The results of this policy are entertaining, to say the least.)

No, I completely agree with you. What I meant was, I have (and have had) professors who will hint at more speculative stuff if someone asks a related question, or maybe if there's time. I just don't know what mechanisms exist inside the brain of Professor Andrulis to prevent the crazy from "leaking" to students. Clearly establishing a good reputation for himself is not one of his motivations.

You mean like this guy?. For more on this nonsense see here: http://www.livescience.com/18207-crackpot-theory-reveals-dark-side-peer-review.html . Now, I don't know whether or not he's trying to peddle that crap to his students, but it's literally just as bad as some of the threads we get in the speculations section.

The problem here is that physics is not axiomatic. There are often many different principles you could take as "axioms" which would physically represent the same thing. For example, I could tell you that the axioms of classical physics are Newton's laws of motion. Or, I could tell you that the fundamental axiom of classical physics is the principle of least action. Or I could tell you that the fundamental axiom is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, or Hamilton's equations, etc., etc. They are just different ways of describing the same behavior. You can use any one as a starting point to derive the rest. The same thing applies.to more fundamental physics. There are usually several different formulations of a theory that you need to keep in mind. We don't need to take any one of them as the "axiom of physics," because there are multiple equivalent ways of doing that. And even if all of physics can be boiled down to a single principle, we still would never call it "the axiom of physics." Rather, we'd say that all observable phenomena are consistent with the notion that they all behave according to some principle.

I think you're willfully ignorant, which I find infinitely more frustrating. I can get along with an idiot, but not with the willfully ignorant. Regardless, your assertion that inertia in the direction normal to the gravitational field is dependent on the gravitational field strength violates the equivalence principle. So either the effect is so tiny that we haven't (or maybe can't) observed it and the equivalence principle is violated, or you're just wrong. Since your model is an ad-hoc assumption that doesn't really serve any explanatory purpose, it's safe to assume it's just plain wrong given a century's worth of data and convincing theoretical arguments in support of the equivalence principle.

Cool stuff .

He doesn't say that it isn't real - just the opposite actually, if you watch the video. He says it's dishonest to suggest to their audience that a cheap toy they bought online is their prototype, and that they seem very phony. He says the board "is probably real, of a sort." But the claims they're making with regard its practicality, and the garage-dwelling inventor + family values routine makes it seem like a bad infomercial. Given that similar kickstarter campaigns have turned out to be scams (solar roadways anyone?) he's saying be cautious about throwing your money at Hendo people. I wouldn't be surprised if the board never becomes publicly available, regardless of how much they raise. But I've been wrong before.

I'll just leave this here:

This is wrong. Entanglement is just a correlation between the states of two particles. It's like having a red ball and a blue ball, each hidden inside separate boxes. You bring one box home, open it, and see that the ball inside is red. You immediately know that the ball in the other box is blue without having to open it, but no information was actually transmitted.