E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
[QUOTE="theorist-constant12345, post: 3264592, member: 279732"In my opinion all matter has a sponge like property and can absorb energy or lose energy.[/quote]
We call this energy "heat."
We call this energy "heat."
Gravity does not have polarity.
So far away from any sources of gravity, spacecraft cannot alter their courses?
At lower pressure water boils at a lower temperature. Altitude itself doesn't matter. Water boils at the same temperature on the International Space Station as it does on the ground.
Incorrect. If you have a clock at ground level and move it rapidly, it slows down - even in the same gravity. So your explanation doesn't work.
So we cannot communicate with satellites outside the Earth's atmosphere?
That's never stopped you before!
What is the point of responding to this guy, for crying out loud he can't even write coherently and his ideas are like something a drunk on acid would come up with.
He just wants attention, If we don't give him the attention he craves maybe he will shutup and go away.
He should be banned today, but you know how they let these types stay around for quite a while before banning them
So you admit it. Good, that's what I was looking for.
Sorry to tell you, but when you just make stuff up as you go along, that's just FANTASY. Your ideas have little or no connection to reality. And while you claim to know the facts, clearly you don't: the things you are claiming directly contradict observations. They are factually wrong, not just conceptually wrong.
So when you say "thermodynamic gain", you mean energy transferred from the environment. That's close enough to being worded right. Trouble is, in this situation there isn't any. So your description is FACTUALLY WRONG.
Amusement! He's a very funny guy. (Not intentionally, but hey . . . .)
Of cause gravity does not have a polarity have you not read what I put, the combination of the two polarities of an atom makes an electro-elastic attractive force of the two combined into one. Two atoms joined then have double this force. There is no other mechanism in matter that can make gravity so this is the only possible explanation that there logically is.
I do not know it all, but I certainly understand the process of gravity and that all objects are always in a state of contraction to gravity, even a static object on the ground is still undergoing contraction by the force.
It is not I whom does not understand this.
It is not I who does not understand Entropy and the ways in which any isolated system can gain or lose energy. I already stated energy or atmosphere or even you, that is the environment. My observations are reality and not invisible pink unicorns.
A big bang from a point is not to say that the point was not already surrounded by matter and the matter has already expanding beyond our boundaries before our time and what is left is what we see that has not expanded yet beyond our sight limitations.
You really have no idea do you, science is this Naive.
To think that a Big Bang could expand matter into space but leave some matter quite relative to a central position, goes against Physics, what mechanism does the matter that remained have to have defied the force that made the expansion?
My Physics suggests that our planet should be travelling along with the expansion at the same velocity, Newton says that matter in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force, so I put to you, what external force kept our Galaxy in place and stopped it expanding with the other matter?
My Physics suggests that our planet should be travelling along with the expansion at the same velocity, Newton says that matter in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force, so I put to you, what external force kept our Galaxy in place and stopped it expanding with the other matter?
This is from the guy who claims to understand science....
Only someone with a phenomenal lack of understanding could have even formulated these questions.
Try a guy with a true understanding of the process of nature and the Physics involved.
You want me to believe that all of space started from a singular point , and space is expanding from the big bang from a singular point, now call me stupid or simple in my thinking if you want, but the truth is a point in space, space has no solidity to expand, it is only mass that has solidity, and to have a point in anything , the Physics are a point is surrounded by space.
Space already exists before any happening at a singular point, that is an axiom of Physics and logic.
It is not me who is being really Naive to the truth.
You're stupid AND simple-minded.
Nothing to do with the subject.
Only in your twisted version of "physics and logic", not the generally understood and accepted ones.
Your understanding is clearly wrong, a point does not exist in nothing, space was there before any points. I put forward to you that a huge black hole by extreme gravity force pulled in by force matter. I then conclude that this matter by the centripetal force and the mass being greater than the central density could maintain, imploded causing the matter to expand into space leaving an energy behind that created a star. This star then grew, and smaller particles of matter then became under an external force of gravity, from the star, that then changed the velocity of the smaller particles, to return into an orbit around the star, whilst denser matter continued to expand beyond the expanded black holes event horizon, by Newtons second law, the matter being of a velocity and mass that the suns gravity had no effect on it.
Einstein's equations fit our visual Universe exactly to the dimensions of a black hole.
Science version of the big bang contravenes the Physical law's of motion, referring to Newton's second law of matter in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external force.
Science version of the Big bang does not explain how particles were able to avoid the expansion and defy Newton's second law.
What?
No.
Rather hilarious for at least 2 reasons:
1) YOU deny Newton's 2nd so it's somewhat hypocritical of you to attempt to use it as refutation.
2) The laws of physics didn't exist until AFTER the universe happened.
You are still making the mistake of considering the Universe to be matter made in the Universe of space.
I still refute Newton that there is not a place with no external forces, it is the external forces that made the planets.
For expanding matter to stop expanding and to start contracting back, a force would be needed equal and opposite to the opposing force. An external force, so how can particles remain in orbit to form planets when the expansion is not contracting, what mechanism give the particles the resistance force to the expansion force to remain in orbit and centralish?
Why did these particles not expand also?
Last edited:
Nope.
You can't "refute Newton" since that's not what he said.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Please consider taking English lessons before you start to learn physics.
My English has nothing to do with my Physics, and you understand very well what i am saying or you would not be arguing it and trying to defend present information, your defence and science ability is lacking in the thought department.
You also avoid the questions and can not put your money where your mouth is.
what mechanism give the particles the resistance force to the expansion force to remain in orbit and centralish?
Why did these particles not expand also?
It is science whom can not answer me, I have answered science, to have an idea is to make that idea, I made my ideas out of truths, and my ideas I will make present ideas, because the truths are the truths,
if you can not answer the above just say we do not know and can not answer you.
And yet neutron stars, which are composed of compacted degenerate neutrons (no "atom polarities" as you describe above) have quite strong gravitational potentials. In addition, by adding nothing but neutrons to atoms (i.e. increasing their atomic weight but not changing their place on the periodic chart) their gravitational force increases. More gravity but no polarity increase. So your theory fails yet again.
An object freely falling in a gravity well is being affected by gravity but is not "undergoing contraction." Indeed, tidal forces will tend to pull it apart if the gradient is high enough. So another fail.
As a general comment, the validity of a scientific argument is not how cool you think it sounds, or how much you like it. It is whether or not the real world operates the way you claim it does. If the real world does not match your argument, it is your argument that is flawed, not reality.
Now you are just looking facts in the face and are refusing to accept them -- and lashing out in defense of your own ignorance. To repeat a tip I gave you before: this would all look less stupid/funny/pathetic if you stopped randomly throwing in the word "entropy".
Anyway, again: energy can't be transmitted from the environment to the water if they are at the same temperature (not to mention well insulated from each other).
- Status