Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #715031 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-27 18:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-11-30 21:27 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 18:08 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-11-27 19:15 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 19:51 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:32 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:41 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:46 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:13 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 04:28 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:22 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 14:04 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 10:01 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 11:08 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 16:33 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 02:44 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 03:15 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 06:40 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 23:03 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 14:18 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 23:49 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 16:22 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 11:46 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 05:23 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:10 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 12:49 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 21:53 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:03 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 02:39 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 12:30 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 06:05 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:32 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 06:36 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-03 14:55 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 08:11 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 15:17 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 08:13 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 20:19 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 18:31 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:27 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:04 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 12:52 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 13:08 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 13:46 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 22:00 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 21:57 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 01:15 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 01:49 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 23:48 +0100
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:01 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 08:38 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:58 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:07 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 16:42 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 18:01 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 11:23 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 11:57 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-29 15:22 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 21:17 -0800
Re: Can A Powerful Black Hole Put light in Orbit? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:27 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 23:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <55de53d3-fe42-434f-a42f-ea2e2a24e7d3@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #715890 |
john wrote: > What causes gravity comes from all matter. > When a planet is small, there is SO MUCH MORE coming from outside. But then a planet gets big enough that what goes out equals what is coming in at its surface. For bigger planets than that, there is then an outwardly-directed gravitational field from the planets surface to some point above the planet. This Space around larger bodies contains more gravitational energy density than regular Space. What is the point of your making stuff up and pretending that it is true? As every high school student nows, the gravitational field (that is, the field that assigns a value to the gravitational force or acceleration to every point in space) of a planet is well-described by Newton’s law of (universal) gravitation: F = G M m/r² F – gravitational force G – Newtonian gravitational constant M – mass of planet m – test mass r – distance between centers of mass. So a small planet will result in a greater gravitational force on a test mass than a larger planet of the same mass, simply because r is smaller in the first case. One can see that the gravitational field never vanishes; the force/acceleration just becomes infinitesimal at infinite distance. It also shows that the gravitational acceleration, which by Newton’s second law of motion (in Euler’s form) F = m a = m g is g = G M/r², is variable with the distance from a body’s center of mass, but usually the altitude is so small compared to r that we can assume that g is constant with altitude (e.g. within a building). This assumption fails, for example, when calculating the acceleration between a comet and probe that is supposed to make a soft landing on it. For an object on or near the surface of the planet Terra (Earth), one gets what one (Galilei) measured: g ≈ G × 5.97 × 10²⁴ kg/(6371 km)² ≈ 9.82 m/s². -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f9870ce-0648-4bab-bfb4-06f46b956697@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716016 |
PointedEars What makes your ‘field ‘?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab00a450-75fc-4ac0-98f4-ceeee07b2a9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716032 |
Electrons are charged particles accelerating around spheres 10^-09m in diameter at relativistic speeds. This releases energy constantly, creating gravity. Larger planets first get to where they block all the background, creating their highest surface gravity. Then, the planet itself is providing more and more background, until it equals that coming from Space. After this, there is a layer of negative gravity between planet and Space that gets larger. It would be this layer of negative gravity that would trap Hydrogen, eventally igniting into a star
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 23:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f1a0960-34af-8c7b-8e67-70da356ac4c9@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #716038 |
john wrote: > Electrons are charged particles Yes. > accelerating around spheres 10^-09m in diameter at relativistic speeds. No. > [more nonsense] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 16:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc503b58-e4ae-462e-8d91-99d0db7d9471@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716042 |
Thomas Learn. Electrons exit far too fast to be standing still. The only thing standing still is Standard Model
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <40f00e14-cbf8-3d13-6d61-fe98c047444b@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #716069 |
john wrote: > Thomas > Learn. Pot, kettle, black. First of all, learn to quote. > Electrons exit far too fast to be standing still. You are a century behind current knowledge. Electrons are NOT little balls orbiting the nucleus; they are *quantum* objects: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron> > The only thing standing still is Standard Model The only thing standing still is your brain. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 05:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2fd1403c-b59c-4ec3-9aff-de9e8f54420d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716151 |
Thomas “...electrons...” Are able to exit the atom in 10^-16seconds after being stimulated. How?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 18:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu175s$7el$11@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716156 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Thomas >"...electrons..." >Are able to exit the atom in 10^-16seconds after being stimulated. How? You are assuming electrons are little balls that have to be accelerated within a specific time or something. He just told you, they are quantum objects, not little balls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0abc235c-5179-4925-8c3c-d7350f9cfc01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716239 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:10:07 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Thomas > >"...electrons..." > >Are able to exit the atom in 10^-16seconds after being stimulated. How? > > You are assuming electrons are little balls that have to be accelerated > within a specific time or something. He just told you, they are quantum > objects, not little balls. So acceleration creates new light? That violates the principle of the conservation of energy... and what about deceleration? What does it do? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu1k8v$gqk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716260 |
mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes: >On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 10:10:07 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >Thomas >> >"...electrons..." >> >Are able to exit the atom in 10^-16seconds after being stimulated. How? >> >> You are assuming electrons are little balls that have to be accelerated >> within a specific time or something. He just told you, they are quantum >> objects, not little balls. >So acceleration creates new light? That violates the principle of >the conservation of energy... No, it doesn't. The energy comes from the electron's kinetic energy/whatever is accelerating the electron. This is the reason why the Bohr atom model with the electron going round and round the nucleus fails. The electron would lose energy and crash into the nucleus. Sefton has a 3D Bohr non-model (no equations), so it fails for the exact same reason. > and what about deceleration? It is a form of acceleration. Google bremsstrahlung. > What does it do? Energy is emitted as light/photons. (NOT gravity as Sefton k0okily claims)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 02:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu22sr$1504$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #716156 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Thomas > “...electrons...” > Are able to exit the atom in 10^-16seconds after being stimulated. How? > What you are thinking in your head is that these must be like dragsters, starting from a standing start and crossing the diameter of an atom in a short period of time. This is not a Newtonian situation. Don’t think of it that way. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 02:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <137e6d62-83d8-496e-bed4-8420baa605eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716324 |
Odd “This is not a Newtonian situation. Don’t think of it that way. ” QM is wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 12:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu37k8$uuq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #716349 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “This is not a Newtonian situation. Don’t think of it > that way. ” > QM is wrong > No, it’s right. Experiment says so. But of course if you try to analyze the atom with Newtonian physics, you’ll get nonsense. Which is exactly what you do, and then you blame QM for it. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 06:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a1123e5-751a-47a2-b95b-13ada6f57e07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716353 |
Odd “it’s right” Pffft. Right wrong, it is. Everything gives off and absorbs energy. Small planets have lots coming in and absorb very little, so lots comes out the other side; small gravity. A planets surface gravity peaks when they absorb everything coming in, so nothing comes out the other side. As planets get larger still, they give off more energy, and surface gravity decreases again. When they give off as much as comes in, gravity is zero at their surface. After that, their surface gravity becomes more and more negative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3epa$tk9$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716365 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >>>QM is wrong It seems rather dumb of you, after being told you can't use Newtonian mechanics, you use Newtonian mechanics anyway and (as predicted) get the wrong answer, then you blame it on QM. >Everything gives off and absorbs energy. >Small planets have lots coming in and absorb very little, so lots comes out >the other side; small gravity. >A planets surface gravity peaks when they absorb everything coming in, >so nothing comes out the other side. Gravitational shielding. Proven nonexistent. FAIL. >As planets get larger still, they give off more energy, and surface gravity= >decreases again. >When they give off as much as comes in, gravity is zero at their surface. >After that, their surface gravity becomes more and more negative. Put down the pipe, John. Do you realize what would happen to a planet with negative gravity? Well, it would be impossible to form, so perhaps you can claim "it doesn't matter!" for that reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f1720840-6321-4f02-87e2-cec6d7f93ee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716372 |
MM “Put down the pipe, John. Do you realize what would happen to a planet with negative gravity? ” You don’t seem to be able to complete thoughts. You’re a parrot. Larger bodies, like the Sun, will have a ZONE of antigravity next to them. Someone should send a probe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3g5b$g6i$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716374 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >> Gravitational shielding. Proven nonexistent. FAIL. No comment? >"Put down the pipe, John. Do you realize what would happen to a planet >with negative gravity? " >You don't seem to be able to complete thoughts. I am asking YOU to think things through. Simple "What would happen if..." thinking. You can't do it? >Larger bodies, like the Sun, will have a ZONE of antigravity next to them. >Someone should send a probe. Ignoring the nonexistence of gravitational shielding, that would prevent them from even forming as infalling matter would be repelled away. And we would have detected that by now! At the lowish speeds of solar system orbits and spacecraft, the inverse square law works perfectly, near the sun, far from the sun or whereever. Except for tiny GR corrections that show up after tracking Mercury for a couple centuries. Right now there is a new probe that has gotten closer to the sun than any other so far. No unusual gravity reports!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <490c62f6-bbef-409d-abd9-cc15b7fc0deb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716378 |
MM “Ignoring the nonexistence of gravitational shielding, that would prevent ” They didn’t take into account that the bodies themselves are emitting what is being absorbed- did they? You can’t have say over something if you have no fucking idea what is going on, Michael. And they didn’t. And you believe them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3hf7$1i5j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #716365 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “it’s right” > Pffft. > Right wrong, it is. John, just to reiterate. In science, what’s right is what agrees with experiment. Period, end of story. Your dismissal of “Screw experiment. Don’t care about experiment. It’s wrong anyway,” means precisely NOTHING. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b8269e8-ead4-4907-ab99-9fa0fcd64664@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716388 |
Odd “with experiment. Period, end” So show me the experiment why you believe in DM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web