Jump to content
Science Forums

Mutex

Members
  • Content Count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Mutex

  1. Just as I expected, you just can't help yourself.. OK, I see there is no point at all in trying to make this a decent forum, at least as long as you are here as a moderator. So, I also note you threaten your mod ban, again, as expected. So be it, clearly you don't want this forum to go anywhere, it's shame too.. Ok, Good bye.
  2. Newtonian Gravity is wrong: You need to get over it. Newtonian Gravity is 'descriptive' but not explanatory, it states approximately what happens, but does not even attempt to explain HOW it works. As such Newtonian Gravity is a good approximation, and perfectly useful for most 'human scale' purposes, but if you were to plot the error that Newtonian gravity has, that error never equals zero. Newtonian Gravity is not a description of how nature creates what we observe as gravity. This is NOT a controversial issue in science, although having been in use for 300 or so years, it is
  3. Also, I do know what big G and little g means, and I know that is from Newtonian gravity where gravity is treated as a force, big G is 'unit force per unit mass', and is a constant. Little g is 'how much you weigh', or gravitational acceleration. Now, you probably know that it is accepted that gravity is NOT a force and although it is close Newtonian gravity F = - Gm1m2/r2, is an approximation, at no scale at all does that equation yield an error of ZERO. It is a close approximation, that is close but NEVER right. Newtonian gravity is NOT how nature works, and it is not why thin
  4. Science debate is about challenging current and dogmatic thinking, it is not about someone dropping the hammer on debate because you value your opinion over others, to the extent where you shut down the debate and issue warnings. In those posts you were trying to justify the Schwarzschild radius, and you were doing so using Newtonian Mathematics, it's not a Newtonian principle. You also mentioned big G and little g, you did not however explain or justify what that means, and I was interested to know your position of what that means. I don't dispute your Newtonian math, but I a
  5. Don't you know science debate and discussion is no longer allowed in this forum?
  6. Great you said some stuff, was as usual insulting, then you give me some equations that you admit have not been confirmed to be true, and all you had to do was give me the equation from relativity that shows that gravity varies with mass density. But you didn't do that, because you cannot support the claims you are making. This makes your claims DOGMA. Why are these things not debatable ? Also, do you not understand that Newtonian gravity is wrong? You've 'proven' me wrong with a wrong model.. We'll done. So now, when are you going to justify your claims and show some act
  7. Great just what we needed!! More infinities LOL. So no curvature inside a black hole, and spaghettification works in every direction, as you get closer to the center of mass space gets longer/bigger so you get longer/bigger. (like we see in our own solar system, as mass gets larger density gets lower (gas giants, and a low density plasma sun 1/3 the density of earth). But we get a relative space length that is simply a function of the amount of mass, and the distance from that mass (so longest at the center of mass). It's the direct opposite to space or gravity being compressed
  8. I've been in the ring the entire time, so far you have not made a single punch, how about you just answer the question. Anyone?
  9. Where is the evidence, or equation where you can show that gravity (big or little) compresses or concentrates in any way as a result of density of the mass. It's just one question, but it seems you have nothing to show that it is the case, nice graphics is not that evidence. It's mass that determines gravity, and the amount of gravity is a function of the amount of mass and the distance from that mass, (assumed as a point source), again, show me where it makes any difference what the density of the matter makes any difference? Again, I can wait.
  10. I'm talking about Gravity, you know the stuff that makes you fall down and that sticks you to the ground, the stuff that DOES NOT COMPRESS when you compress matter. But please, prove me wrong, (instead of just insulting), go ahead and show me the equations and established science that says that gravity compresses with mass. One thing I have notice is you provide NO evidence, no equation, you just get grumpy, sorry if you can't quite grasp the concepts. But I expect more from you guys. Why does big G or little g make any difference, do you have ANY evidence that you can compress the
  11. Why? are you reducing (increasing) the volume of gravity along with the volume of mass? For these types of calculations you consider the mass a point anyway, and you calculate for a reasonable distance from the mass, but that is only because close to the mass (due to its volume) not all the mass can be consider from a single source directly below you. But regardless of that, your fundamental mistake is to consider that by compressing mass into a smaller volume you compress the gravity as well, no equations make that relationship, Either in Relativity, or in Newtonian gravity. Grav
  12. How about you take each point I made and addressed each one, I gave you lots of meat to chew on, seems like you are not hungry 🙂
  13. DO better !!! (looking up the answers at the back of the book will get you a fail grade). Then show your working, just saying that you did does not count. I gave my logic and reasoning, I think I made a good argument, I was very specific and referred to what we actually observe. Can you show me anywhere where there are equations that consider mass density as a function of gravity, or any observations that indicate that a black hole compresses gravity along with matter, but 'somehow' that gravity is still the same at r distance from that mass? I'll wait, but seriously, 'I'm
  14. Sure, you can say that, do you have any evidence that shows that it is false? Or would you like to show your reasoning that you are using to come to that conclusion? I am just going with the available evidence and observations, that's what science does, it is what separates science debate and dogma, just saying it is false without providing your justification as to why it is false, for me is not what science does. I justified the statements I made, they are accepted observations and valid, no Einstein's or Newtons equation regarding gravity involve mass density, and from observatio
  15. It's more speculation that information!!! 🙂 we simply do not know at all what happens inside or on the surface of a black hole, and it is not something that is possible to observe, so we can only speculate. Relativity (and even Newtonian gravity), do not consider mass DENSITY at all, and for good reason, it is not at all about the density of the mass, just the amount of mass and the distance from the center of mass. The reason why this is important is that it is assumed that when mass is compressed (such as in a black hole) that the gravity also compresses. However, gravit
  16. Most of the matter that makes up the earth (rocks, water etc.) generally do not change their density all that much (with pressure for example), So a uniform distribution of that matter would not really make much difference to the volume of the earth. As for how smooth, it is already amazingly smooth, even with the big bumps on it like Mt Everest and deep ocean trenches, it is still amazingly smooth. Imagine a Que ball off a pool table, very round and very smooth right, the earth is much smoother than that que ball. Or if you scaled the que ball to the same of the earth it would be
  17. Math alone does not prove anything at all, 'doing the math' is just a small part of the total scientific method, and just because some mathematical model looks right that does not mean it is an accurate description of reality. Also, we really have no idea what is going on at or in a black hole, all we know for sure about them is that they do not emit visible light (they are black), and they have a lot of mass (by observing how things move near them). The same concept applies for 'information', what experiments or observations show that 'information' as an independent 'thing' is real
  18. I think you are right, and that is why they simply do not understand the difference between having access to some limited classified information for your job, and having everything about your job to be in that world. But if I was lying I have to do a great deal of research to make my claim, I gave the year, the exercise, the ships involved and so on. I could have even given the approximate specific date, it was within a few days of the 4th of July 1988 (guess how I could remember that date :D) I has on HMAS Hobart, parked behind the USS Missouri, I did my electronics training at
  19. I think you are lying Thoth.. why do you and Ocean lie all the time? Why did you say you were in the military when you obviously were not? And Ocean I do not believe you were ever in the Coast Guard, held a security clearance, or that you have the mental capacity to work for NOAA. In fact I don't even think either of you live in the US.
  20. Quote me: I HAVE worked extensively with US built and classified Top Secret systems, that is not the same as saying I worked extensively with the US. You have a real comprehension problem: How many times do I have to explain myself, until you understand the words I am saying? Is English not your first language? I worked WITH the US, in this situation, for possibly 1 or 2 hours!! I worked on US manufactured and classified equipment for years and years, that equipment is classified Top Secret by the US government, no one can see that equipment or work on it unless you have a
  21. You see what you did there, NO, I DID NOT work with the US extensively at all, I never said I did, NOR am I in the US ID card system or military structure. Why would you even assume that? In my last post I thought I made it fairly easy to understand, so there is NO requirement for me to know (or care) about what the US does for security clearance for their members, that stuff really has nothing to do with the actual people working in the area. That's administration. What I said in my last post explains it very clearly, just take that as a fact and stop trying to make a flat earth arg
  22. So one last time so we can end this: Lets see if you can grasp this. 'The highest security clearance can issue': Yes, The US designs the equipment, they manage it and they even own it, they also classify the equipment as Top Secret, therefore, it is a US issues security clearance. Now I was issued my US Security Clearance (for US classified equipment), by the Australian Security Agency (ASIO), as I was vetted to the necessary standard required for me to possess a Top Secret clearance to work on US classified equipment. Now I was on an Australian Ship (a DDG), that is a US BUILT guide
  23. Again, until you can be civil (or leave this forum) there is no real need to engage you, but I don't know what is wrong with you, but if you want you can check it out (if you have the required security clearance), it was a RIMPAC exercise 1988, the USS Missouri battle group, against the USS Nimitz carrier group, And YES, we had some problems with our UHF Systems, and the Missouri's Wiskey 3 specialist came onboard our ship to help me with a unit that was not working (gave us replacement circuit), and in return I was able to do some work on one of their crypto systems. I know you think ev
  24. You don't seem to be particularly smart, or you can't read or something. And yes, I have BEEN ON US Battleships, Namely one called USS Missouri, you might have heard about it. Did I serve on it? Hell not, Did I do work on top secret systems ON THE MISSOURI, inside their comcenter.. YES. I don't remember the US coast guard doing much in the way of working with other Navies, or NOAA. But until you get some respect and stop being toxic there is no point in engaging you, or supporting this forum.. I hope you go soon, for the sake of this sub. Because you are an ***. and you don't
  25. It's up to you guys how you want this forum to progress or not, but accusing people of lying, and making stupid arguments and being arrogant Aholes, will not help you, perhaps the owner of the forum will try to do something to kick some life into the forum and promote some reasoned debate about science. But until that starts to happen I don't see how this forum is not just going to die.
×
×
  • Create New...