Jump to content

Charles 3781

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles 3781

  1. Thanks joigus, I know magnets have energy, as you say, because if you take two magnets, and try to push them together against their opposite poles, they won't come together no matter how hard you try to force them. The question is this: How can two lumps of inert metal create such resistive force out of nothing?
  2. Yeah, but surely "Gravity" doesn't depend on "Mass" but also "Distance" - Inversely Squared. Therefore if a Black Hole gets smaller in size as it contracts, its gravitational pull diminishes.
  3. I'd like, if I may, to pick up on one issue.. MigL citing a previous post from Joigus, makes this statement: "The gravity produced by a BH is no different from any other equivalent mass". Now, I wonder whether this takes into account, the Black Hole's extremely small physical dimensions. Wouldn't these small dimensions cause a drastic reduction in the BH's ability to exert gravity. Following the diminishing inverse-square law from its outer surface?
  4. Isn't the point of calculus this - only proper mathematicians can understand it.
  5. So how do magnets retain their pulling force, without any input of kinetic energy? I mean suppose you said: "I've invented a new fuel-less car. It's got magnets which will pull it towards your destination. Then when you want to go home, you turn the car round, and the reversed polarity of the magnets will repel it back to your starting point." Without the car using any petrol during your travels. Is that credible?
  6. Don't you mean, "according to scientists", the whole Universe was born from nothing? Suppose you were asked, "Where did your computer come from?" And you said: "That's a meaningless question - it came from nothing." How would you respond?
  7. That is the most honest, insightful and truthful post that I 've seen on here. Well done!
  8. According to current theory, didn't the entire Universe spring from a minute "Black Hole" smaller than a proton. Then expanded outwards. To create trillions of stars, galaxies and so on. Given the wide vista of prospects allowed by such a theory, would you rule anything at all out, as physically impossible?
  9. Yes it might be. To pull the magnets apart, you have to use physical force, and this force is equalised when the magnets come together again, so the overall expenditure of force is balanced.
  10. I try to contribute, but every time I do, my posts get red negative marks stuck on them, which is very hurtful Thanks Phi, for the information. I'm not really trying to say "bad things" about the forum. I just wonder why you go to the trouble of keeping it going.
  11. Vic, when you changed the spatial position between the magnets and your visa, you had to expend kinetic energy - by employing physical movement - and this movement was converted into electromagnetic energy, which restored the steady state of the magnetism.
  12. Look MSC, the Mods created this site. Why do you think they did that? Was it to further the progress of Science. Or was it or another reason. Such as expanding their own ego's?
  13. When you say "How are you magnetising the other magnets", I think you have in mind rubbing a magnet against a bit of non-magnetised iron.. Thereby turning the second bit of iron into a magnet. This can be plausibly explained, by a transfer of kinetic energy from the "rubbing" between the two bits of iron.
  14. That's a profound truth. If we were dependent solely on our limited human senses, we wouldn't know much about the Universe. It's only by building instruments, such as telescopes, microscopes, and spectroscopes, that we have increased our knowledge.
  15. OK, Ok, I retract the gas bit. Tear-gas has been fired at protesting crowds by your US enforcement agencies. But to my knowledge, the US has not yet made use of a snake, unless you count your President.
  16. You Americans are more used to firing guns and shooting each other, so I defer on that point, As regards gas and snakes, neither of our two peoples has yet employed such methods, so it remains a hypothetical, and probably quite impracticable scenario for future civil unrest in our respective countries.
  17. Your expression "a self-organising superstructure" does have an appeal. When we study languages, we notice that they always have a "structure". The words contained in a language, are not mere random collections of syllables. They're organised into patterns governed by "rules". For example, in the Latin language, all nouns fall into five different patterns, or "declensions". And within each declension, every noun has a terminal "inflection", or "case ending", according to the grammatical function that the noun performs. The functions, in Latin, are "Nominative", "Vocative" "Accusative", "Genitive", "Dative", and "Ablative". There are similar complexities in the Latin verbs. Four different patterns, or "Conjugations" of verbs. Each with a terminal ending, according to whether the verb functions as Singular, Plural, Present Tense, Imperfect Tense, Perfective Tense, Pluperfect Tense, or Future Tense. Also whether the verb functions in "Indicative", "Subjunctive" or "Imperative" Mood. Or as participle, gerund, or gerundive. Such a maze of complexity! Surely no human brain would have thought it up! It must come from some higher superstructure, or "organising principle", that's perhaps inherent in the Universe.
  18. I'm not sure about the First Amendment, and what protection it confers under your written Constitution. That's a matter for you Americans. We British have been wise enough not to even attempt drawing up a written constitution. Such a thing can only create a field of mayhem for lawyers to dispute over. As you keep finding out in the US. With your lately occurring paralyses of Government and embarrassingly abortive impeachment trials of your President. Here in the UK, we stick to an un-written constitution. This is vastly preferable. Because when the constitution isn't written down, the lawyers can never find documentary evidence to impeach a Prime Minister for violating it. Doesn't that make sense?
  19. That's very pretty, Migl. Completely irrelevant, and not even all that ingenious, but a worthy reply.
  20. See MSC, you impugned a moderator's pride. Lord knows how he will exact retribution on you!
  21. Phi, I'm not "intellectually cornered" as you put it. I just wonder why some intellectual persons such as yourself, can't seem to discuss political questions without resorting to terms like "SHOOT" "FIRE" and "POISON GAS" . The use of such terms conveys a very unfavourable impression. Don't they make you, and others of your ilk, appear emotive, violent, and potentially extremely dangerous. At least that's the way it seems to me. You sound quite scary!
  22. Aren't these replies just sophistry? Why do they use emotionally-loaded negative words such as "SHOOT" "FIRE" "POISON GAS" "SNAKES" . Is it because they're trying to portray anyone who defends free speech as a horrible person.
  23. I empathise with you. I don't believe in Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and especially the Higgs Boson. These absurd figments of the imagination have undermined our belief in Science. But they are only passing phenomena. Comparable to "epicycles" and "phlogiston" in the history of Science. They will soon be exploded and dismissed, as Science progresses. As regards God, I think He's probably a manifestation of the future collective intelligence of the human species, when we have achieved, through Science, the ability to travel through time.
  24. How is it different? If you're buoyant in the ocean, aren't you, in effect, experiencing no gravitational force. Just like in free-fall space orbit. Isn't that why astronauts practice space missions in big tanks of water. Whales and dolphins spend their whole lives in the water without suffering bone-loss. I know this another thread derailment. Please delete it, if you think it advisable.
  25. Thanks CharonY. Well of course I know gravity permeates the whole Earth, including its oceans. But I thought that in the oceans, the downward pull of gravity gets nearly cancelled out by the upward push of water-pressure. Thus allowing mammals like whales to thrive in a nearly zero-G environment. Without ill-effects. That's all I was saying. Is it wrong?
  • 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.