Strange

Newton demonstrated exactly the opposite: that if his theory were correct, then the universe would have to be infinite. If not, then there would be a centre of mass that everything would fall towards. If the universe is infinite, then the pull in all directions basically cancels out. (See also his Shell theorem.)

But if you did manage to copy and paste from Word, would you still ignore all the discussion as you have done in all the threads you have created so far?

If M*Ti = G*M, then Ti = G. Or do you need to take a class in basic arithmetic, as well as calculus? There is no l in your equation. As this data is available, why not use it? Or perhaps you think that the value of G was only measured once, by Cavendish using cylinders? You could start here, if you really don't know how G is measured: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2026/20140022

I am sure it is part of the standard. Maybe you have a faulty laptop or cable

1. Please show how you calculated this. 2. It is wrong, therefore your model does not work.

Your replies don't seem to have much connection to the question asked. Why can't you calculate the height of a geostationary satellite?

Why can't you can use your new gravity "lav" (toilet) to calculate the mass of the Earth? I don't know what g, M, Ti, p, and R represent but why can't you use this to calculate the mass of the Earth (is that M?) Sounds like you need to do an introductory course in calculus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Perhaps you need to explain why you think these measurements do not exist. Then we can explain why you are wrong.

Until you can do that, you have nothing to discuss.

Or not: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4419

Apparently they can be: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Auditory+hallucinations+ptsd Sorry, I only have 10,000 citations to support it this time. I think you are right. In general. There are some people with schizophrenia who are well aware of their disorder and know the voices are hallucinations, etc. (That doesn't make them any less realistic or scary, though.) This willingness to trust sensory inputs above data is not limited to schizophrenia and and other delusional disorders. When some people report that they saw a UFO and "it can't be explained by any natural phenomena" they will often insist they they "know what I saw". Whereas some of us know that our senses are notoriously unreliable. There was a really good thread on an astronomy forum from someone who was an experienced observer but got caught out by the illusion of a star moving around the sky. He knew it could;dn't be moving - he knew what star it was, etc. - but he still saw it move. Sadly, there are all too many people who will insist that "therefore it did move".

As this is science fiction, you can invent any mechanism you like. I suspect is is the delta rays emitted by invisible pink unicorns that are to blame.

Well, it would be very easy for you to confirm this. You can calculate the orbital speed of a planet round the sun and compare it with what we measure. You could show how Kepler's laws are derived from your equation. You could, as someone else requested, calculate the orbital height of a geostationary satellite. Have you done any of these things to confirm your equation works?

Three dimensions cover all directions only in three dimensional space! In space with more dimensions, then more dimensions are required - that is rather a circular argument, but I can't think of any pother way of putting it. Intuitively, we imagine there can only be three orthogonal axes because we exist in a 3D universe. It is hard to visualise more dimensions, and I suspect the only route in is via the mathematics. In relativity, time is a fourth dimension. It is traversable but only in one direction. In special relativity, the effects such as length contraction and time dilation are actually rotations between one of the spatial dimensions and the temporal dimension - an object moving (relative to you) swaps some of its spatial dimension for time. In general relativity, the more complex curvature of the space and time dimensions causes effects such as the thing we call "gravity". Hope that helps a bit. It is a lot to get your head round.

Here are 54,000 of them: https://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=auditory+hallucinations+in+schizophrenia

Well, on your side is the odd coincidence that the radius of the observable universe is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the estimated mass of the observable universe. Also, there is the "holographic theory" ... However, the universe is quite unlike a black hole in some important ways. For example, the universe's singularity is in the past, while the singularity in a black hole is in the future. The thing is, the universe does not expand at the speed of light. In fact, expansion is not a speed at all, it is a scaling effect. That means that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are (see also: Hubble's law). That means that there are (and always have been) places in the universe that are moving apart at greater than the speed of light.

As are we all!

The quantum nature of neuroscience has not been established.

This is a common belief among people with schizophrenia who do not want to accept that it is a symptom of the disease. It is, of course, nonsense. People were hearing voices long before we had microwave technology (and there is zero evidence that microwaves can be used to do that). So not pulsed microwaves after all!? It can do. Obviously not, as it is a common symptom. (But obviously, schizophrenia is not the only possible cause.) So you mean "yes" not "nope". Your thoughts (subconscious or otherwise) will obviously be affected by the fact you have schizophrenia. I think you confuse creativity and imagination with reality. (Which is likely a symptom of schizophrenia.) Citation needed. (Or is this another of your "beliefs". In other words, wrong.)

It is clear that tkadm30 has no idea what "evidence" means.

I think we are largely in agreement. And I think you have probably saved the thread from the Trash, single handedly!

I have seen about the same number of people use similar arguments to insist that it is "simpler" or "more logical" or just "necessary" that the universe is infinite. Basically, the universe could be finite of infinite. We don't know. And, quite possibly, we can't know. As there is no evidence that the universe "came into existence" the isn't much point basing an argument on that.

As these are fermions, not bosons, they cannot exist in the same place at the same time. (And this isn't what happens during nuclear fusion.) This is based on a series of unsupported assertions. You haven't shown that the speed of light changes at small distances (just asserted that t does). You haven't shown any connection between the speed of light and the strength of gravity (just asserted there is one). So I think we can safely dismiss this as it is totally unsupported by evidence or theory. You are ignoring the fact that protons have measurable internal structure. Which pretty much proves they cannot be black holes. Also, the Schwarzschild radius for something with the mass of a proton is about 10-39 x the radius of a proton. Which pretty much proves they cannot be black holes. It is perfectly possible to build models of spacetime with zero mass or energy. So it doesn't require more than one proton. Not only is it not quite as simple as that, that is completely wrong.

The guy appears to be a complete crackpot. http://boingboing.net/2012/07/10/crackpots-geniuses-and-how-t.html Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Flawed Chemtrails Paper by Herndon Retracted

You saw a contrail followed by dusk. The sky is blue. And clouds exist. But I am fascinated: what colour do you think the sky "really" is?