Schwarzschild metric has a flaw. If you arrange steel balls from one end to another end across universe, would the one at the center melt due to gravity?is it no or yes? If You get it right, you could probably win noble price.💪

In what way is this a “brain teaser” or puzzle?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

In what way is this a “brain teaser” or puzzle?

Perhaps you have to work out that noble price means Nobel Prize? 🤪

3 hours ago, swansont said:

In what way is this a “brain teaser” or puzzle?

I want an answer. It's yes or no. So what is your answer and what's your explanation?

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Perhaps you have to work out that noble price means Nobel Prize? 🤪

Ops, my mistake. It means noodle peace ✌️ 😁😁.

Just now, Lan Todak said:

I want an answer. It's yes or no. So what is your answer and what's your explanation?

I want people to expend the tiniest effort to post things in the appropriate forum, but like Sisyphus I’m cursed to roll them into the right forum only to have new ones appear in inappropriate ones.

Moved to physics.

Why do you think they would melt? How can there be one at the center? The universe has no center. Why do they have to be balls? Is the ability to move around important to the problem?

i.e. it’s not a yes or no question. It’s too vague.

33 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

I want an answer. It's yes or no. So what is your answer and what's your explanation?

This is science, so there is no "answer". An explanation is the best you'll get, but if you want one based on mainstream knowledge, you need to clarify what you mean.

Are you thinking the universe has one "end" that can be the start of a chain of anything that leads to another "end" on the other... side? If your balls are spread out across the universe, why would one of them melt?

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is science, so there is no "answer". An explanation is the best you'll get, but if you want one based on mainstream knowledge, you need to clarify what you mean.

Are you thinking the universe has one "end" that can be the start of a chain of anything that leads to another "end" on the other... side? If your balls are spread out across the universe, why would one of them melt?

….if your balls are spread out across the universe….

You asked a similar question some years ago

https://scienceforums.net/topic/120883-somethings-wrong-with-the-way-we-calculate-mass/

The analysis and answer given there still applies

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If your balls are spread out across the universe, why would one of them melt?

If one is just skimming the new posts and eyes land on that sentence, one can briefly wonder what sort of physics they're doing around here.

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

….if your balls are spread out across the universe….

....you would be John Lennon?

Edited September 2Sep 2 by geordief

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If one is just skimming the new posts and eyes land on that sentence, one can briefly wonder what sort of physics they're doing around here.

I meant to be facetious, but now you've got me worried about who the crawlers and bots are going to bring to us.

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

….if your balls are spread out across the universe….

... are they subject to Quantum Endanglement?

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

... are they subject to Quantum Endanglement?

Ha ha!

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I meant to be facetious, but now you've got me worried about who the crawlers and bots are going to bring to us.

OTOH the AI crawlers will now have to incorporate it and provide it as a possible answer to some question.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

OTOH the AI crawlers will now have to incorporate it and provide it as a possible answer to some question.

"Your honor, I found an interesting argument contained within my briefs..."

1 hour ago, swansont said:

OTOH the AI crawlers will now have to incorporate it and provide it as a possible answer to some question.

"A New Paradigm: Framework for Quantum Testicular Extension".

How long before the first paper pitches up on this forum?

Didn't Schrodangler work out the math on this already? Possibly Max Planck first raised these questions.

In any case, this certainly adds a new twist to the Measurement Problem.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by TheVat

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

"A New Paradigm: Framework for Quantum Testicular Extension".

How long before the first paper pitches up on this forum?

Testicles of the same spin can’t exist in the same scrotum, unless they are in different orbital angular momentum states (which is painful). The Bally exclusion principle

I don't know why you guys think this is funny.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

"A New Paradigm: Framework for Quantum Testicular Extension".

We are all old, and showing signs of Classical Testicular Extension.

On 9/2/2025 at 10:53 PM, swansont said:

Why do you think they would melt? How can there be one at the center? The universe has no center. Why do they have to be balls? Is the ability to move around important to the problem?

Can we increase gravity intensity by stacking up objects? If you are given a task to create a core of objects, how many stacked masses of objects required before gravity start crushing the masses to create core. Yes or no? Give me explanation.

On 9/2/2025 at 11:33 PM, Phi for All said:

This is science, so there is no "answer". An explanation is the best you'll get, but if you want one based on mainstream knowledge, you need to clarify what you mean.

Why can't science give answer. I don't understand. It's because science can't solve problems or science is more to philosophy?

1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

Can we increase gravity intensity by stacking up objects? If you are given a task to create a core of objects, how many stacked masses of objects required before gravity start crushing the masses to create core. Yes or no? Give me explanation.

If you are thinking of gravity as a force then that force falls off proportional to the inverse square of the distance. So your mile long steel balls are not affecting balls further away, the longer the chain the less significant the force.

The fact the steel balls are small then the mass in the gravity equation is also small.

5 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Can we increase gravity intensity by stacking up objects? If you are given a task to create a core of objects, how many stacked masses of objects required before gravity start crushing the masses to create core. Yes or no? Give me explanation.

Can we? Yes. Must it happen? No.

g=GM/r^2

The gravitational acceleration will depend on how much mass you have, the configuration, snd where the location of interest is in relation to it.

If you have a spherically-symmetric configuration, the gravity at R only depends on the mass inside of R. The effect of the mass outside all cancels out. The gravity inside of a spherical shell is zero.

5 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Why can't science give answer. I don't understand. It's because science can't solve problems or science is more to philosophy?

Because the details matter, and you didn’t provide sufficient detail

8 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Why can't science give answer. I don't understand. It's because science can't solve problems or science is more to philosophy?

Theory is what science uses. A theory represents the best explanation for a certain phenomenon, based on accumulated evidence. Theory keeps us asking the questions in order to make the theory better, make it more capable of solving problems and making predictions. Theories are constantly being supported by new evidence, and probably most importantly, they are capable of being falsified by new evidence.

When you think you have an "answer" to a question, you stop asking the question. This causes problems.

Many theories have so much evidence that many people refer to them as "answers" and "proof". Science is skeptical though, and nothing is beyond doubt.

8 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Can we increase gravity intensity by stacking up objects? If you are given a task to create a core of objects, how many stacked masses of objects required before gravity start crushing the masses to create core. Yes or no? Give me explanation.

In this case, you keep demanding yes or no "answers" to poorly phrased questions (in addition to an explanation). The observable universe has no "ends" the steel balls could reach. It's meaningless to ask "how many stacked masses would it take" (paraphrasing) if you aren't going to give us more detail. And how does any of this indicate a flaw in the Schwarzschild metric?