Science already knows the magic of gravity

[Kittamaru]

No idea to be honest, my argument is helium at the moment.

Then you don't understand buoyancy...

I know what Buoyancy is , I know helium is said to float on the denser gases, I know the present thoughts on this.
I think black holes are simply the absence of light.

Your above answers shows that no, you do not.

Black holes are not the "absence of light"... they, quite simply absorb it. Light cannot escape from it, once it gets to a certain nearness to it.

http://www.chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0105/bh_ce/index.html

Read, and learn

 

[Kittamaru]

Does the Helium sink in a C02 filled room?

More energy loss than gain,

Has nothing to do with energy at all, and everything to do with mass and buoyancy...

How much energy do I need to lift a 1 kg mass with a weight of 9.81n?

There is a simple equation to tell you this - can you find it?

 

[rpenner]

Call me curious,

A curious person would ask a simple question. A science denialist would adopt of position in ignorance and stick to it.

you have just give me detailed results for Helium and Hydrogen on the Sun

Detailed results that anyone with a high school student's research skills should have been able to suss out.

now call me stupid if you want to

I propose to moderation to edit T-C's forum title to "Stupid" and lock him from profile changes.

but I am certain Humanity as never travelled to the Sun to get a sample of what is contained.

Really? And I suppose you know the history of every spacecraft (on the order of 7000) launched by mankind? And if we had a sample before us in a lab, how would we determine elemental abundance? And where was that technique first deployed? And where was Helium first discovered?

Neither is the Sun the same substance has the Earth or the same ?

The sun has a different elemental composition than the Earth.

has the ground and mantle of the earth but close to being the same has the earths core.

Earth is not a gaseous planet, so the core has different elemental composition than the crust and mantle and atmosphere.

Now I said no interference of humanity,

I explained above why your criterion was meaningless. You have failed to argue for your position or explained how mankind has "interfered" in the Sun's elemental composition.

this is about the Sun is pure guess work for sure?

Do you bet your continued existence on this forum on this claim being judged true?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then you don't understand buoyancy...



Your above answers shows that no, you do not.

Black holes are not the "absence of light"... they, quite simply absorb it. Light cannot escape from it, once it gets to a certain nearness to it.

http://www.chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0105/bh_ce/index.html

Read, and learn

My knowledge of black holes is limited, I know Einstein's maths fits the visual Universe inside a black hole and I do know about a black hole bending light around them by a strong gravitational field which has just switched my chain of thought about the magic of gravity, gravity is not mas or matter related, a black hole shows no mass or matter just a void that interacts with light,

My lines have just switched to dark energy might be gravity.

 

[Kittamaru]

My knowledge of black holes is limited, I know Einstein's maths fits the visual Universe inside a black hole and I do know about a black hole bending light around them by a strong gravitational field which has just switched my chain of thought about the magic of gravity, gravity is not mas or matter related, a black hole shows no mass or matter just a void that interacts with light,

My lines have just switched to dark energy might be gravity.

No... just, just stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole

The maximum mass of a neutron star is not well known. In 1939, it was estimated at 0.7 solar masses, called the TOV limit. In 1996, a different estimate put this upper mass in a range from 1.5 to 3 solar masses.[3]

In the theory of general relativity, a black hole could exist of any mass. The lower the mass, the higher the density of matter has to be in order to form a black hole. (See, for example, the discussion in Schwarzschild radius, the radius of a black hole.) There are no known processes that can produce black holes with mass less than a few times the mass of the Sun. If they exist, they are most likely primordial black holes. The largest known stellar black hole (as of 2007) is 15.65±1.45 solar masses.[4] Additionally, there is evidence that the IC 10 X-1 X-ray source is a stellar black hole with a probable mass of 24–33 solar masses.[5] As of April 2008, XTE J1650-500 was reported by NASA[6] and others[7][8] to be the smallest mass black hole currently known to science, with a mass 3.8 solar masses and a diameter of only 15 miles (24 kilometers). However, this claim was subsequently retracted. The more likely mass is 5–10 solar masses.

We "KNOW" the mass of several back holes... they have mass!

NOTE - We "know" to within a reasonable degree of probability - obviously, since we cannot go and put the blasted thing on a scale, there is some ACCEPTABLE degree of error.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No... just, just stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole



We "KNOW" the mass of several back holes... they have mass!

NOTE - We "know" to within a reasonable degree of probability - obviously, since we cannot go and put the blasted thing on a scale, there is some ACCEPTABLE degree of error.

That bouncing head is annoying.

Stop what exactly?

I am not doing anything but talking to you about ideas I have and that pop up,


you say you know the mass of black holes, black holes do not exhibit matter or a medium, this shows gravity is not medium or matter based and something we have never considered.
We look at objects to look at gravity, there is no objects at a black hole.

There is no matter attracting to matter, matter is attracted to a no matter gravity.

 

[Kittamaru]

You really don't have any idea what a black hole is, or how they are formed... do you...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You really don't have any idea what a black hole is, or how they are formed... do you...

I thought they just appeared then vanished again?

I have your links open, your links are different to what I thought, I guess youtube is not a good learning aid.

 

[Kittamaru]

I thought they just appeared then vanished again?

no...not at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-a-black-hole-58.html#.VPB1yfnF8wo

A black hole is a region in space where the pulling force of gravity is so strong that light is not able to escape. The strong gravity occurs because matter has been pressed into a tiny space. This compression can take place at the end of a star's life. Some black holes are a result of dying stars.

Basically, there is so much mass compressed into such a tiny area ( making is super-dense) that its gravitational pull is immense.

How Do Black Holes Form?
Primordial black holes are thought to have formed in the early universe, soon after the big bang.

Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space.

Scientists think supermassive black holes formed at the same time as the galaxy they are in. The size of the supermassive black hole is related to the size and mass of the galaxy it is in.

Primordial black holes and supermassive black holes, to my knowledge, we have not VIEWED being born - stellar black holes, the much more common variety, we have gotten to watch their creation. It is... both awe inspiring and terrifying.


This link has a video to a super-computer simulation of a black hole forming from two neutron stars colliding:

http://www.space.com/25863-neutron-stars-merge-black-hole-video.html

 

[theorist-constant12345]

On that note though, the big bang was the collapse of a huge star bigger than our sun that created a super expanding black hole, that expanded matter that was beyond the event horizon and induced a centripetal gravitational force that held some matter central, the Earth wants to push away from the Sun but the gravitational centripetal force of the black hole holds us in a orbit?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

no...not at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-is-a-black-hole-58.html#.VPB1yfnF8wo



Basically, there is so much mass compressed into such a tiny area ( making is super-dense) that its gravitational pull is immense.



Primordial black holes and supermassive black holes, to my knowledge, we have not VIEWED being born - stellar black holes, the much more common variety, we have gotten to watch their creation. It is... both awe inspiring and terrifying.


This link has a video to a super-computer simulation of a black hole forming from two neutron stars colliding:

http://www.space.com/25863-neutron-stars-merge-black-hole-video.html

Thanks for the video link, yes i understand it now, I have it in my head, the central point of the centripetal pressure causes an implode.

 

[Kittamaru]

On that note though, the big bang was the collapse of a huge star bigger than our sun that created a super expanding black hole, that expanded matter that was beyond the event horizon and induced a centripetal gravitational force that held some matter central, the Earth wants to push away from the Sun but the gravitational centripetal force of the black hole holds us in a orbit?

... citation, now.

No, I'm immensely serious about this - where did you get that idea from... because it is so wrong that it isn't even funny...

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.

There was no "huge star bigger than our sun" - there was, in essence, everything condensed down to a single point, infinitesimally small. Essentially, a gravitational singularity

Thanks for the video link, yes i understand it now, I have it in my head, the central point of the centripetal pressure causes an implode.

Centripetal pressure has nothing to do with it... nor does it 'implode' - it is a merger of gravity. Centripetal force would PREVENT objects from falling into a black hole - in essence, they overcome this and centrifugal force and collapse in on themselves.

In reality, it is that the energy a star is outputting (via nuclear fusion) ends up being LESS than the energy required to stop its mass from collapsing inward.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

... citation, now.

No, I'm immensely serious about this - where did you get that idea from... because it is so wrong that it isn't even funny...

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html



There was no "huge star bigger than our sun" - there was, in essence, everything condensed down to a single point, infinitesimally small. Essentially, a gravitational singularity

What is a citation exactly?

I know the present model and the big bang starting from a singular point , and space is expanding.

If you consider your video link , and you put yourself in the central point where the stars join together, they expand from you when they form a black hole.

All the plasma/gases/matter expands also, eventually to a distance from the central point where it is no longer plasma, and just becomes an energy, a black hole, some matter gets retained inside the hole, whilst other matter is expanded by the hole.

Just a different look and has no affect on any maths.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

A dark energy because it loses excitement.

 

[Kittamaru]

What is a citation exactly?

Citation, source, etc - basically, it's where you got your information from.

I know the present model and the big bang starting from a singular point , and space is expanding.

If you consider your video link , and you put yourself in the central point where the stars join together, they expand from you when they form a black hole.

All the plasma/gases/matter expands also, eventually to a distance from the central point where it is no longer plasma, and just becomes an energy, a black hole, some matter gets retained inside the hole, whilst other matter is expanded by the hole.

Just a different look and has no affect on any maths.

Yes, a singular point - a star is not a point. No, nothing becomes "just energy" nor a "black hole" - there are VERY specific circumstances under which these things happen. All matter that passes the event horizon is retained inside the black hole. The only things expelled by the black hole are gamma ray burst, or if they are not past the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

The sources of most GRBs are billions of light years away from Earth, implying that the explosions are both extremely energetic (a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime) and extremely rare (a few per galaxy per million years[4]).

We are talking energy on a level the Milky Way does not even know!

A dark energy because it loses excitement.

What loses excitement? What are you talking about?

 

[Dywyddyr]

My knowledge of black holes is limited...

As we're about to see:

I know Einstein's maths fits the visual Universe inside a black hole

This is meaningless..

gravity is not mas or matter related

Wrong.

a black hole shows no mass or matter just a void that interacts with light

Wrong.
Mass is one of the very few properties that a black holes does have.

My lines have just switched to dark energy might be gravity.

What?

 

[rpenner]

You don't demonstrate that you have the background to make sense of these:

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genrel-early/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

Thanks for the links I will read up on metaphysics.

When?

Also you have some unanswered questions put to you:

What would be the starting point for such a conversation [about a mechanism to explain the behavior of gravity]?
...
if you don't even understand the behavior of gravity, what chance do you have to talk about purported meta-physical mechanisms since you lack the ability to judge if said mechanisms give rise to the observed behavior?
...
If you don't care about your thoughts well enough to express them in precise English, why should we bother to care about them?

---

Helium rises, Hydrogen rises, I release Helium and Hydrogen on a deep ocean floor, enough weight and pressure to crush a submarine, the Helium and Hydrogen rise although they are under a huge amount of weight, what force allows the Helium and Hydrogen to rise?

The force of gravity causing the rest of the ocean to fall down under the bubble of gas.

Your response to the above post met with universal ridicule since buoyancy was understood as explained by Archimedes' principle for the past 2300 years.

Well that answer does not sound convincing,

It's a very simple problem in Newtonian dynamics.

the ocean is pulling down should hold it down,

Where is the evidence the ocean is pulling down when by your example the bubble starts on the floor where all of the ocean is above it?

the answer to helium from my view is that it is opposed to gravity so rises.

Why do people build rockets to go to space when if helium behaves the way you say a balloon would work?

In my opinion in Buoyancy the water does not push upwards, the boat pushes downwards , the same direction as the water is pushing, the ocean applies a force on the ocean bed and does not apply a force on the atmosphere.

A convex block of wood and/or metal has a volume of 100 cm³ -- what is the criterion for that block to float in pure water? in sea water? Some woods (the cheapest I can name is Verawood) don't float. Lithium, sodium, and potassium all float on water (and vigorously chemically react).

 

[Dywyddyr]

On that note though, the big bang was the collapse of a huge star bigger than our sun that created a super expanding black hole, that expanded matter that was beyond the event horizon and induced a centripetal gravitational force that held some matter central, the Earth wants to push away from the Sun but the gravitational centripetal force of the black hole holds us in a orbit?

No.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Citation, source, etc - basically, it's where you got your information from.



Yes, a singular point - a star is not a point. No, nothing becomes "just energy" nor a "black hole" - there are VERY specific circumstances under which these things happen. All matter that passes the event horizon is retained inside the black hole. The only things expelled by the black hole are gamma ray burst, or if they are not past the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst



We are talking energy on a level the Milky Way does not even know!



What loses excitement? What are you talking about?

What is a citation exactly?

Citation, source, etc - basically, it's where you got your information from.

.

Well, the information is from me, I think about it and try to imagine myself as the process.

Yes, a singular point - a star is not a point. No, nothing becomes "just energy" nor a "black hole" - there are VERY specific circumstances under which these things happen. All matter that passes the event horizon is retained inside the black hole. The only things expelled by the black hole are gamma ray burst, or if they are not past the event horizon.

It depend how big you define a point to be in a space. Two stars tearing each other apart forming a central point within the stars.

If you consider our Sun , ask yourself what would it be if you expanded it the length of the visual universe ?

It would be just a dark energy and gases, no longer light.

 

[Kittamaru]

What is a citation exactly?
.

Well, the information is from me, I think about it and try to imagine myself as the process.

That... explains a lot, actually... not necessarily in a good way.

It depend how big you define a point to be in a space. Two stars tearing each other apart forming a central point within the stars.

If you consider our Sun , ask yourself what would it be if you expanded it the length of the visual universe ?

It would be just a dark energy and gases, no longer light.

A "point" is a specific thing:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Geometry/Points,_Lines,_Line_Segments_and_Rays

Point
A point is an exact location in space. A point is denoted by a dot. A point has no size. A point is always has a capital letter.

It is a mathematical absolute. There is no "it depends" with them... they are absolute.