Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/17/19 in all areas

  1. https://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-how-big-largest-universe-2019-5?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
    1 point
  2. 1 point
  3. It's not about transparency, it's about the light from stars being dim and being washed-out by daylight. Your eyes can't cope with bright light from your surroundings, and see the stars. Same reason photos taken on the Moon generally don't show stars - even though there's practically no atmosphere there. A satellite camera will be arranged so that direct sunlight doesn't cause the same issue. There's no reason for simple air to be one-way transparent. edit: at night, where do you think the atmosphere goes to make stars visible?
    1 point
  4. Dim would you shut up for a while please? I read the last 2 pages of this thread and youre not making any sense, literally your every post is some kind of a manouvre with multiple meanings to cover up what you don’t know or what you don’t want to say.
    1 point
  5. You are making the mistake of confusing infinite in extent with infinite in energy. Gravitational force falls off by the square of the distance. Because of this, the energy of the gravitational field remains finite out to any distance, even infinity. If you integrate GMm/r2 in order to get gravitational potential energy, you get E= -GMm/r. To get the energy difference for a mass at different distances from a planet, you take the difference in GPE at those distances. For example, between the surface of the Earth and a point an infinitely far away. As r tends towards infinity, GPE tends towards 0. Thus you end up with 0 -(-GMm/re) or just GMm/re, where re is the radius for the Earth , M is the mass of the Earth, and m the mass of our object. This works out to be ~62511759 joules per kilogram for mass m. This also works out to being the energy it takes per kilogram to accelerate the object up to 11.18 km/sec or escape velocity from the Earth. Ergo, any mass, even infinitely far from the Earth, has a finite gravitational energy with respect to it, and an infinite in range gravitational field does not require infinite energy.
    1 point
  6. I see where you are trying to twist my words to your own benefit. I know I'll catch some criticism for this but you are a troll, when you can't convince someone with a honest argument you turn to deception, obfuscation, and ignorance. I see no reason to engage with you any further on this forum much less this thread.
    1 point
  7. You don't need to know the masses of the Earth and Sun to confirm Newton's theory. It is more than a hypothesis. You need to look up the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory". The predictions of this model are supported by evidence, so it is a theory, not a hypothesis. Actually, we can. Don't let your ignorance of the evidence fool you into thinking that there isn't any. This is why it is so important to have a really good education in the subject before making up your own "theory" (not a theory. or even a hypothesis.) Yep, that is how science progresses. (Not by people making things up.) No one believes that. So why make such a ridiculous claim? Physics. It may be incomprehensible if you don't know anything and, apparently, refuse to learn. But, to put it as simply as possible, different materials behave differently. I have no idea what the word "logic" is doing in this sentence. I think what you meant to say was: "After all, according to my complete lack of understanding, they should be built from almost one substance" So you are happy to criticise well-established science supported by mountains of evidence gathered over centuries (because you don't know about it) and yet you make up a model for the atom that has no basis in reality, and then try to invent a theory of gravity from that. You can't see a flaw in this approach? This is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, elementary particles and planets are not at all alike. Elementary particles are described by wave functions and probability; electrons are not little balls orbiting a solid nucleus. (Despite what a children's science book might have told you.) Secondly, we can measure things like the speed of light, etc. and know that they are universal constants. As the rest of your "theory" is based on these fundamental errors, I am not going to spend much more time on it. There was still no comparison of gravity and electromagnetism. (Using a different pronoun doesn't change that fact.)
    1 point
  8. Sorry that I overestimated your grasp of the material.
    1 point
  9. And yet you continue posting on page after page, day after day, week after week. I humbly submit that there’s nothing respectful about the approach you’ve chosen.
    1 point
  10. Teaching isn't about being right, it's about being close enough to inspire understanding of the next level. And Eise just inspired me to the one after that (I think) +1.
    1 point
  11. Irrelevant? I'm betting the links had information you needed, and he knew it. And you know he knows it, because you reached out to him, held him up as an authority because he's a working professional. Other working professionals have been trying to get you to see that you need some formal learning, and that your intuitive, untrained perspective is NOT the benefit you think it is. STOP!!! You're seriously misinterpreting what's been said in this thread. You're trying to paint us like we're looking down our noses at you for your ignorance in physics. One of the rules here at SFN is that we don't attack people, we attack ideas. Run them through the gauntlet of experience and knowledge the membership possesses, and try to poke holes in the idea to show it's false. If we can't do that, we acknowledge that. You've been given very specific reasons why specific things you said were wrong based on mainstream science. Everyone here would love to see you apply yourself to study. They've mentioned it several times, but only after they showed you where your claims were wrong. At no time did anyone dismiss you for your lack of physics knowledge. They simply corrected you where you were wrong, assuming that's why you came to a science discussion forum. If you don't want to stay here, I understand. But please don't leave because you think everyone here is treating you like a "bumpkin". It has NOTHING to do with YOU, and everything to do with your ideas. That's what we're tying to help with.
    1 point
  12. No. Six divided by four is 1.5 ! Moderator Note This was a reply to a spammer so may seem to lack context!
    1 point
  13. No, not so much. There is symmetry, but it's at a very small scale.
    1 point
  14. No, me neither. I was under the impression that electricity was the movement of charged particles, ions in this case. Any effect would be very weak in any case. Critique away, I'm not invested in this.
    1 point
  15. Technically, at least 1 researcher disagrees, so in a dishonest argumentation / bad faith sort of way, their point is pedantically accurate. Majority of disagreement, however, accepts the core premise and differs only on marginal differences around magnitude or best response. The obvious issue is that this Mental Gymnastics poster here is clearly attempting to convey an inaccurate impression and to mislead readers. They’re essentially trying to convince people that the consensus among researchers on this topic is anything but overwhelming and consistent across research domains. Said another way, and as I’m sure you already know, they’re either ignorant or lying. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
    0 points
  16. "Blessed is he who believes". Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot. For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun. Therefore, their orbits have large eccentricities. I derived the exact formula for calculating the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding.
    -1 points
  17. I've already been accused of "bitching" about emergence and told that my very presence in this thread inhibits intelligent conversation of AI. (I've seen no evidence of the latter). I respectfully decline to play. I've said several times I don't want to discuss it. I've said my piece and I wouldn't want to inhibit all the insightful and intelligent commentary on AI that I was apparently preventing by my mere presence. Wow. Now you ARE using evolution as a proxy for emergence aka "stuff we don't understand." The bottom line is that when I do respond to my mentions, I get accused of "bitching" and of inhibiting all the world-class commentary on AI that would otherwise ensue if I would just STFU. Then when I DO announce I have nothing else to say on the topic, people complain about that too. Well make up your minds.
    -2 points
  18. Then I support you ending this thread from your repeated nonsense.
    -3 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.