Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #566595 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 22:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 08:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 139 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 22:18 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:09 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 00:48 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:04 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 02:30 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:54 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory trudi.schwander@gmail.com - 2016-03-30 02:50 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 03:05 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:42 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:21 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 05:55 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:27 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 17:40 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 08:09 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 10:25 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 15:53 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 17:37 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 08:05 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:12 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 16:24 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:26 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 22:30 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-31 00:18 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 09:41 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:35 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-31 21:11 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:02 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:43 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 18:55 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:35 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 22:50 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 20:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 19:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 15:01 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 19:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 18:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:22 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 00:07 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:45 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 11:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 19:08 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:40 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 11:34 -0700
Re: SpaceTime is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 20:09 +0000
Re: Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 23:29 +0000
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:31 -0400
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 05:55 +0000
Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:03 -0400
Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:15 +0000
Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-05 16:26 -0400
Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 18:59 +0000
Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:59 -0700
Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 20:38 -0400
Re: Many organisms would consume you. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-06 21:05 -0400
Many organisms would consume you. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 06:35 -0700
Re: Many organisms would consume you. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:22 -0400
Many organisms would consume you. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 13:00 -0700
Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 13:16 -0700
Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:18 -0400
Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 06:57 -0700
Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:31 -0400
Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-07 13:52 +0000
Re: Your pet theory of the universe. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-07 20:48 +0000
Re: It takes energy to separate objects. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-08 13:43 +0000
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 18:57 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:57 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:25 -0400
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-06 10:01 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-06 20:23 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:05 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 18:01 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:26 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:09 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 06:32 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:16 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:32 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 19:23 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 17:54 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 21:00 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:02 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-12 00:35 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 22:12 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:28 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:35 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 19:03 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 09:19 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 00:40 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:40 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 03:25 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:31 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 19:32 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:07 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 19:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:55 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 18:35 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:01 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:00 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-06 20:25 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 17:43 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 19:58 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:19 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 23:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 12:09 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 23:26 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:06 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:31 -0500
theoretically noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:03 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:46 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:07 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:28 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:31 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 19:28 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:26 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 14:36 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-10 17:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 17:56 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 20:58 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 19:44 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:07 -0500
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 10:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. |
| Message-ID | <cBPMy.16361$4s2.4603@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #567995 |
On 04/05/2016 03:44 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>
> Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off.
>
> When the cosmos (nearly) hits thermodynamic equilibrium,
> all motion ceases, whereupon gravity is (nearly) dead and burried.
> Even stars _must_ evaporate.
>
> Sadly, your "high school physics" forgot to consider
> this "The Heat Death of the Universe", Michael Moroney.
> It's like evolution, only less popular, hence the omission.
>
>
Increasing entropy is old steam engine thermodynamics and just plain
wrong. I presume you are using your superpowers again to determine how
the universe works.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 16:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. |
| Message-ID | <ne0ob0$p05$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567995 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. >When the cosmos (nearly) hits thermodynamic equilibrium, >all motion ceases, whereupon gravity is (nearly) dead and burried. >Even stars _must_ evaporate. That is what I love about sci.physics. You have an asylumful of people who start off with a k00ky idea (usually a misapplication of a correct rule of physics), get obsessed with it and kook about it here. They all believe they are smarter than scientists in their fields, they made great discoveries. If only they would listen!!! There is a kook that doesn't believe water evaporates, a couple that believe the universe (or at least galaxies) are giant atoms and the asylum that is sci.physics has an entire ward for anti-relativity kooks/Einstein haters. Now we have one that believes gravity evaporates or something. I love sci.physics, k00kwatching is so entertaining!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 16:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. |
| Message-ID | <4o78gb1pvpjciacd28hjt2mphl39p4iv4r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568048 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:40:45 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote: <...> >Best_Theory_To_Date says that EVERTHING, >even a (notional) black hole, evaporates away. > >See: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe Since when is Hawking's speculation fact? >Once that happens to the known Universe, >your (highly deficient) "high school physics" breaks down. Evaporation is perhaps a poor choice of words as evaporation is simply a change where a liquid turns into a vapor. No atoms are harmed in the making of this statement. -- Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. "It is my erudite opinion that a man should not mince words just to spare the sensibilities of the ignorant or the thin-skinned."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 18:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. |
| Message-ID | <ne3mah$21j$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568048 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me): >> Now we have [a KOOK who] believes gravity evaporates or something. >Best_Theory_To_Date says that EVERTHING, >even a (notional) black hole, evaporates away. Pulling something from your butt and calling it "Best_Theory_To_Date" doesn't make it true. I have no problem with entropy constantly increasing, or Hawking Radiation, but gravity evaporating?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 16:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. |
| Message-ID | <8129362f-f470-4921-9422-2e9e8287189f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568350 |
Jeff-Relf.Me You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me): > I have no problem with entropy constantly increasing, > or Hawking Radiation, but gravity evaporating ????? You can't separate mass from its gravitational field; intrinsically, they are one and the same. Once a (notional) black hole has evaporated and gone away, its once_strong gravitational field is DONE AND GONE. Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. Per the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics: The _quality_ of energy degrades, only the _quantity_ is fixed. SpaceTime/Gravity is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ). As eXergy is consumed away, never to return, gravity dies off. What remains might be "enough", depending on your point of view ------------ Nothing is ever consumed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 20:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. |
| Message-ID | <7_hNy.2615$r8.1888@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #568432 |
On 04/06/2016 07:59 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me
>
> You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me):
>> I have no problem with entropy constantly increasing,
>> or Hawking Radiation, but gravity evaporating ?????
>
> You can't separate mass from its gravitational field;
> intrinsically, they are one and the same.
>
> Once a (notional) black hole has evaporated and gone away,
> its once_strong gravitational field is DONE AND GONE.
> Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity.
>
> Per the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics:
>
> The _quality_ of energy degrades,
> only the _quantity_ is fixed.
>
> SpaceTime/Gravity is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ).
>
> As eXergy is consumed away, never to return, gravity dies off.
> What remains might be "enough", depending on your point of view
> ------------
>
> Nothing is ever consumed
>
WOW! Sounds like HVAC believes his atheist God is immortal!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 21:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Many organisms would consume you. |
| Message-ID | <sfcbgbhm2qik0iv1o0von4e6es27qq2ves@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568432 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:45:07 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in message news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.6{5.32P.Seattle.2016}...
>
>You (hVac) replied (to me):
>> > You can't separate mass from its gravitational field;
>> > intrinsically, they are one and the same.
>> >
>> > Once a (notional) black hole has evaporated and gone away,
>> > its once_strong gravitational field is DONE AND GONE.
>> > Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity.
>> >
>> > Per the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics:
>> >
>> > The _quality_ of energy degrades,
>> > only the _quantity_ is fixed.
>> >
>> > SpaceTime/Gravity is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ).
>> > As eXergy is consumed away, never to return, gravity dies off.
>> > What remains might be "enough", depending on your point of view
>>
>> Nothing is ever consumed
>
>If, after you died, I dumped you in a hole,
>many organisms would consume you.and then up your bum
Are you trying to give Jeff a case of eye strain?
LOL! It won't work because Jeff's hand-rolled client
only shows a black background with white text no matter
what you configure.
HTH
--
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 06:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Many organisms would consume you. |
| Message-ID | <52bdb7b4-a096-48bf-8c14-6663b54312a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568432 |
Jeff Ralph says > Nothing is ever consumed If, after you died, I dumped you in a hole, many organisms would consume you. ------------- No. They may eat me. They may convert my dead flesh into chemical/heat energy. But nothing is ever consumed in our universe. Ever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 10:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Many organisms would consume you. |
| Message-ID | <e2uNy.2566$uf4.1081@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #568549 |
On 04/07/2016 09:35 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Jeff Ralph says
>> Nothing is ever consumed
>
> If, after you died, I dumped you in a hole,
> many organisms would consume you.
> -------------
>
> No. They may eat me. They may convert my dead flesh into chemical/heat energy. But nothing is ever consumed in our universe. Ever
>
More likely convert your dead flesh into worm shit.
That would an easy conversion given the starting material.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 13:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Many organisms would consume you. |
| Message-ID | <58a4376b-5439-49ff-9a74-3a5ed684ae84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568549 |
But nothing is ever consumed In our universe. Ever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 13:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. |
| Message-ID | <4a27c77b-e854-48f4-b1b1-b11e9acd4ea0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568663 |
All of the matter, energy, space and time in our universe was present at the big bang. It's all still here. None had been consumed. Honestly Ralph, haven't your fucking learned to never question me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 21:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. |
| Message-ID | <CFDNy.5257$JK7.4564@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #568670 |
On 04/07/2016 04:16 PM, HVAC wrote:
> All of the matter, energy, space and time in our universe was present at the big bang. It's all still here. None had been consumed.
>
> Honestly Ralph, haven't your fucking learned to never question me?
>
Rolf, there is no Big Bang. It's all kook fantasy. The most HVAC knows
about Newsservers is texting and driving with his phone.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 06:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. |
| Message-ID | <20afd61c-1df4-4f50-b9dd-4ff6cd645c15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568670 |
Jeff Ralph says You (hVac) wrote: > All of the matter, energy, space and tim > in our universe was present at the big bang. > It's all still here. None had been consumed. Congratulations, you know the first law of thermodynamics. Now, please learn the 2nd law: ---------------- The 2nd law states: Never question HVAC. Learn it. Live it. Love it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 14:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. |
| Message-ID | <uOSNy.16568$KO5.1368@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #568925 |
On 04/08/2016 09:57 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Jeff Ralph says
> You (hVac) wrote:
>> All of the matter, energy, space and tim
>> in our universe was present at the big bang.
>> It's all still here. None had been consumed.
>
> Congratulations, you know the first law of thermodynamics.
> Now, please learn the 2nd law:
> ----------------
>
> The 2nd law states: Never question HVAC.
>
> Learn it. Live it. Love it
>
Rolf, HVAC is your MASTER! Slaves NEVER question their masters!
You wanna whuppin' boy?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 13:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. |
| Message-ID | <ne5onh$mp$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568350 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me): >> I have no problem with entropy constantly increasing, >> or Hawking Radiation, but gravity evaporating ????? >Once a (notional) black hole has evaporated and gone away, >its once_strong gravitational field is DONE AND GONE. Wrong. As a black hole evaporates, it radiates energy (Hawking Radiation) to its surroundings. Because of E=mc^2, this radiation still gravitates. A star with a mass of about 10 times that of the sun exploded in 1054, leaving behind a neutron star of about 1-2 times the sun's mass and the Crab Nebula. Just because the neutron star's mass is much less than the original star doesn't mean gravity "evaporated", it just means most of the mass of the star is elsewhere, the mass of the nebula itself, an earlier stellar wind and the energy of the explosion (which reached and passed us nearly 1000 years ago). Similarly, an evaporating black hole radiates itself into the universe. (of course there won't be a net loss of mass until the CMBR cools to below the equivalent temperature of the hole so the hole will no longer gain net mass from absorbing it) This energy still exists (though extremely diluted) and it still attracts everything gravitationally. The gravitational profile will be different as an observer will see gravitation from a region of energy, not just from a single point of the hole. >Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. The holes themselves evaporate, the energy of their former mass radiating outward and still gravitating. What this does to the future universe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your pet theory of the universe. |
| Message-ID | <ne6h3n$ra6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568551 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me): >> [ Black Holes ] evaporate [ but their energy is ] >> still gravitating [ somewhere else ]. >> What [ does this imply about ] the future universe? > >Per the 2nd law of thermodynamics: > As entropy rises, "eXergy" (energy that can do work) dies away. OK. >Gravitational eXergy is equal_and_opposite to all other forms of exergy. Where did you get this BS from? Typical kook behavior. Come up with some crazy idea and declare it the truth. True because you say so. On any given day there are a dozen others here doing exactly that. >Once a (notional) black hole has evaporated and gone away, >its once_strong gravitational field is DONE AND GONE. True for the hole itself, but its mass (as energy) has radiated outward, as Hawking radiation, along with its gravitation. Again, think of the Crab nebula. Just because the central pulsar is much smaller than the original star, gravity there didn't "evaporate", it's just that much of the mass of the star is elsewhere. Different mechanism, same idea. >Eventually, (nearly) everything evaporates away, including gravity. BS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: It takes energy to separate objects. |
| Message-ID | <ne8cht$9cr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568693 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: ><h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'> >You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me): >> > Gravitational eXergy is equal_and_opposite to all other forms of exergy. >> >> Where did you get this BS from? >Paraphrasing, Stephen Hawking wrote: > It takes energy to separate objects; so > "gravitational field energy is always negative." -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy#Newtonian_mechanics So where does that state "Gravitational eXergy is equal_and_opposite to all other forms of exergy"? After all, attractive electrostatic energy follows the same rules of an inverse square law. So is attractive electrostatic energy "equal_and_opposite to all other forms of exergy"? It's all how you define the reference. Where do you define the reference distance? 0? That produces an infinity. Infinite? Some other number? Justify the choice of that other distance. Infinity has a reference of 0 so it's the most logical choice but it causes any other distance to be negative energy. >> Typical kook behavior. Come up with some crazy idea >> and declare it the truth. True because you say so. >> On any given day there are a dozen others here doing exactly that. >You reject "The Heat Death of the Universe" >and simple thermodynamics, kook. You are the one who is coming up with crap like "evaporating gravity" and you call me a kook? I just believe in the regular laws of physics including the laws of thermodynamics, but without adding made-up physics-law-violating crap like "evaporating gravity". >> > Eventually, (nearly) everything evaporates away, including gravity. >Again, Google says: > The heat death of the universe is a historically > suggested theory of the ultimate fate of the universe > in which the universe has diminished to a state of no > thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer > sustain processes that consume energy (including > computation and life). Notice it does not say "Gravity evaporates". That is just crap you made up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 18:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. |
| Message-ID | <60dfbe2d-9f00-46a9-ac01-24f4d2152f22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567995 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 1:55:42 PM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: > > >Michael Moroney wrote: > >> We certainly know that gravity is not getting weaker. > > >Wong, Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. > > Evidence (for gravity)? > > >"The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. > > >When the cosmos (nearly) hits thermodynamic equilibrium, > >all motion ceases, whereupon gravity is (nearly) dead and burried. > > >Once "Dark Energy" (Entropy) wins, gravity/eXergy is gone. > > Sounds like you're making things up as you go along.. > > As two objects get further apart, more energy goes into the gravitational > field between them. As the strength of gravity in inverse to the distance > squared, it gets weaker with distance so the energy stored reaches a > limit, even at infinite distance where it is a maximum. For this energy > to be retrieved, the gravitating objects must somehow approach each other > and it becomes kinetic energy. If the universe is infinitely expanding, > then this can never happen, this energy is forever locked away in the > gravitational field. > > This is high school physics. The force of gravity diminishes from the centre of a gravity sphere. It is evidenced by orbital velocities slowing according to the inverse square law. If the universe expands and the distances between galaxies and stars and their gravity centres increase they will slow down. Hubble's law is questionable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 07:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. |
| Message-ID | <1bOdnd9tHps3mpjKnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568172 |
On 4/5/16 8:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The force of gravity diminishes from the centre of a gravity sphere.
> It is evidenced by orbital velocities slowing according to the
> inverse square law. If the universe expands and the distances between
> galaxies and stars and their gravity centres increase they will slow
> down.
It is not clear to me what you are trying to say with your use of
therms, "gravity sphere" and "gravity centres increase".
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms
of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
(screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales.
The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic
repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4Ï€ e_0 r^2) (e^2/4Ï€ e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
structure of the universe on the largest scales.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 10:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. |
| Message-ID | <h%8Ny.7407$ZI.1136@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #568243 |
On 04/06/2016 08:57 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/5/16 8:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> The force of gravity diminishes from the centre of a gravity sphere.
>> It is evidenced by orbital velocities slowing according to the
>> inverse square law. If the universe expands and the distances between
>> galaxies and stars and their gravity centres increase they will slow
>> down.
>
> It is not clear to me what you are trying to say with your use of
> therms, "gravity sphere" and "gravity centres increase".
>
>
> Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
> Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
>
> "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain
> when gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational
> force law
>
> F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
>
> o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all
> mass, and, since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms
> of energy.
>
> o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges
> to cancel positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield
> (screen) the gravitational interaction. Gravity is always
> attractive.
>
> o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a
> 1/r^2 interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for
> gravitational interactions as there is for the strong and weak
> interactions.
>
> o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting
> between individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales.
> The ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic
> repulsion between two protons separated by a distance r is
>
>
> F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
> -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
> F_elec e^2 / (4Ï€ e_0 r^2) (e^2/4Ï€ e_0)
>
> where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
>
> These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in
> physical phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is
> the weakest force, gravity governs the organization of the universe
> on the largest distance scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These
> distance scales are far beyond the subatomic ranges of the strong and
> the weak interactions. Electromagnetic interactions COULD be long
> range were there any large-scale objects with net electric charge.
> But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic forces
> are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale
> net charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the
> structure of the universe on the largest scales.
Sam, G=Emc^2 is the "God" equation! G can mean God or Gravity! It's been
approved by the Vatican! It's quite well-accepted now.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web