ACG52

How does this 'excess of energy' (in excess of what?) produce entropy? What are 'energy possible particles', and how is time 'released'? By 'electromagnetic energy particles', do you man photons? Or electrons? Or something else you're making up? How does entropy make em possible. Do you know what entropy is? What membranes? What is an 'electromagnetic cloud of energy possible space'? (algorythyms, is that the former VP playing drums?) Have I gone into enough depth to justify calling this nonsensical word salad?

He's been told that before, here and on other forums. It does no good, he continues to misunderstand and deny relativity.

Owl is a long time relativity denier. He has no real basis for this, other than he just can't accept it.

As has been amply shown, both here and on other forums you post on, you are totally ignorant of any kind of science, much less physics. IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can only decode it when you use the bible in the original English.

No, but we have weighed it with great accuracy at CERN. If there were antigravitational effects, it would show in the weight. http://press.web.cer...1/PR10.11E.html

owl seems to believe there is an absolute frame of reference, in which all lengths are fixed. Don't you mik?

And every test for the last hundred years has backed up the Einstein's 'grandiose statements' .

What you're saying is that there is an absolute rate of time, and by inference, an absolute length, and an absoulute frame of reference. This totally contradicts what Relativity tells us, and since relativity works astoundingly well (check your GPS for confirmation), I think I'll go with Einstein and ditch you.

Sorry. Just more nonsense.

You looked at the headlines, but didn't bother to actually look at the study, did you? (of course you didn't). Let me link you to it and quote the opening statement: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995 Read you cites before making yourself look like an idiot.

'Some scientists'? Who, where, and when. The Laws of physics have translational symmetry, meaning they are the same no matter where you are, so the measured value of c does not have a position dependency.

As I posted to Rich in another forum, Here's a study done last year by NASA and JPL. To quote the salient part: NASA Research Confirms it's a Small World, After All - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The beam remains at a constant c with respect to the ship. No matter how fast the ship is moving with respect to something else, the beam of light is always moving away from the ship at c, when measured from the ship. So to talk about the ship flying into the beam is nonsensical.

Who does? All you've done is rewritten F=(Gm1m2/r^2). So?

The UTU is dependent on P1, but the number of UTU recorded on P2 and the number recorded on Earth will differ due to the different rate of time dilation between P2 and Earth.

The last documentary on Titanic which I saw about 2 month ago recreated the rivets and the plating, using the original specs and material. They they subjected them to various strains and impacts, and they didn't pop.

As I read it, he established a tick rate observed on a high gravity object, and then asked what would the tick rate be as observed on earth.

viXra is where papers go when everywhere else has turned them down.

The radius of the supermassive BH at our galactic center is estimated to be about 6.25 light hours, so it's going to take significantly longer than a tiny fraction of a second. And ours is not a particularly large BH, as galactic BHs go.

Right, no citation. Just your reasoning.

Perhaps the reason it's so difficult to explain is because it's pretty meaningless.

Do you have any kind of citation for this claim. Because, given that we don't know what the singularity acutally is, and we don't know the physics inside the event horizon, to make the claim that there is no matter inside the event horizon is a bit premature.

No, it doesn't. You don't know what a dimension is. Your posts are meaningless tripe, and if anyone gives you the impression otherwise, they're being polite.

What Bart is basically asking is 'what is the difference in time dilation between a gravitational field of 100 solar masses and a field of 1 earth mass. I answered him in post #23.