New laws of motion!

Theorists laws of motion -

1.An object can not change it's velocity, unless there is a change in Kinetics of the object, from it's Entropy steady state.


One law that defines all motion.

Please forgive me for seeming like I am spamming , but I think I have a theory of everything, so thought is would be easier to be sectional.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how do you define "Kinetics", and "Entropy steady state"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You reside in Hollywood, right?
Sarcasm aside regarding your acting ability, let's hear your TOE.....
So far you have had one thread under consideration for cess-pooling, this one would be a doozy!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I define the entropy steady state, has the equilibrium of amount of energy contained in the mass, on a Quantum scale.

I define Kinetics, has an increase or decrease in the entropy.

 

Alternative explanation - Imagine you were made of glue, and when you walk, you lose glue to the ground, but that glue gets replaced, what you lose to maintain your entropy is regained.

 

Entropy steady state = the equilibrium of amount of energy contained in the mass , on a Quantum scale.
That of course makes no sense at all. I can change the entropy of a moving object with out having any effect on the velocity. I can also change an objects velocity without changing the energy contained in the mass.

Cool we taking common words and redefining them, the hallmark of the pseudoscience wacko.

So when I boil a kettle of water that is "Kinetics" - well isn't that special...

 

I smell cesspool material "sniff, sniff"

 

Huh, it is obviously not in a steady state if it is moving, and the Entropy of the mass is different if you are applying a force to make the mass move.

And what generally does Quantum scale mean?, it means on a very tiny scale, atoms to you.

You can only change the velocity of a moving object, if external force is applied, you are adding more Kinetic energy to the entropy.


P>S - I am blind drunk, this is hard work to concentrate.

In simple terms, there is no mass, particle, medium, in the entire Universe in a steady state, and the entire motion is defined by the Entropy and Kinetic state .

 

Well since you like to make up crazy definition for terms like 'steady state', your defintion may preclude movement but in the real definition of steady state something can be in steady state and moving.

First a mass can be moving with no force applied.
How does the entropy change if I apply a force to a moving mass?

So Quantum Scale means atomic scale? You should really quit making up definitions and terms!

Oh you mean like Newtons first law of motion? So you are just trying to rephrase Newton's first law of motion (and failing badly!).

How, pray tell, do you add Kinetic energy to the entropy??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't worry this is no worse than your normal gibberish.

In simple terms that is wrong.

Well if we use your goofy definition of Kinetic state your sentence becomes:

"the entire motion is defined by the Entropy and Entropy."

Which is wrong and wrong.

 

I have now drank the full bottle of ouzo, I have just realised I am at that stage beyond drunk.
Disclaimer - do not drink when you grow up , if you not yet of an age to drink. It is really , really bad for you.
It kills brain cells, and can cause you to have serious accidents.


Ok , one point, an object already in motion, ''First a mass can be moving with no force applied'', is not in its steady state, it is in momentum by the initial applied force, and there is no friction or external acting force to take that kinetic energy away , that it initially received.

Analogy - I have a steady state entropy of 10 kj of energy throughout my body, I push a car along a road, the car moves 50m and then I am to tired to push the car any more, I lose 8kj of energy, the distance of 50m took away 8kj of my energy , that was transferred tot he car, and from the car into the ground.


Analogy 2 - I push something, let go of it, then same process has above, the energy I transfer, is given to the object that loses it to the ground.

 

Cesspool this train wrech and put it out of it's misery....

 

A little observation and questions about relativity, using a cesspool as our frame of reference.

If I fill a cesspool with water and stir the water in a rapid circular motion, a small vortex (empty space) forms in the center of the water and the waterline in the cesspool rises due to the empty space in the middle. We normally call this phenomenon "centrifugal force" of the rotating water molecules, partially negating the downward force of gravity and spreading the water outward and upward along the walls of the cesspool..

Question; if I were a (sentient) water molecule in the cesspool, would I know that the force which drives me sideways toward the boundaries of the cesspool is due to centrifugal force or due to gravity?

This question occurred to me while reading about "fictitious centrifugal force".

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

As black holes are known to have a rapidly rotating very dense centers, would "centrifugal force" be responsible for the BH vortex, driving matter (the water) inside the BH against the total mass of the surrounding space (the walls of the cesspool) partially negating the downward gravitational force of the BH singularity?
If that were the case, could the event horizon of BH be due to a distortion of raised space around the BH vortex?

 

If I'm reading you correctly centrifugal force in a rotating BH [a Kerr type BH] results in the ring singularity at its center, and the effect on the critically curved spacetime resulting in two relevant EH's, the outer spheroid oblate shape EH called the "static limit," and the more familiar spherical inner EH.
Enclosed between these two effects, is the region we call the "ergosphere" and from which it is possible to extract energy or even escape from.
see.....
https://www.google.com/search?q=kerr black hole&espv=2&biw=853&bih=415&tbm=isch&imgil=4V9uShC-DtKQeM%3A%3Bbu-ap0qGAmS9qM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.daviddarling.info%252Fencyclopedia%252FK%252FKerr_black_hole.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=4V9uShC-DtKQeM%3A%2Cbu-ap0qGAmS9qM%2C_&usg=__VlMabpefh1jTAnUCAw84QVIzH-A=&dpr=2.25&ved=0CD0Qyjc&ei=ppRxVKOfKYf08QXblYLoCQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=4V9uShC-DtKQeM%3A;bu-ap0qGAmS9qM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daviddarling.info%2Fimages%2FKerr_black_hole.gif;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daviddarling.info%2Fencyclopedia%2FK%2FKerr_black_hole.html;361;280



And a reasonable description from WIKI at.............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole

 

Thanks Paddo for your serious reponse to my tongue in cheek question with information about the real science of Black Holes.

So, on a more serious note, I have never quite understood the concept of a Black Hole being causal to a White Hole " at the other side.
But has anyone ever seen a White Hole?

Although we cannot look inside a BH, under certain conditions we can see the BH itself as a black object with an event horizon in space, from all angles. Seems to me that if a BH creates a "dimple" in spacetime on one side there should be a corresponding erupting "pimple" if seen from the other side.

Thus the questions:
If we can observe a BH from all sides as a BH, where would the WH be observable?
Is a WH a wormhole into another universe with its own spacetime?
If so, would there be a loss of energy from our universe and a gain in energy in a companion universe?

 

Of course we have never seen a WH, and I once was informed on another forum by a reputable Gr theorist that they are really Impossible to exist in this Universe.
But they are part of my favourite speculative scenarios.
Note carefully, It's just speculation, unlike the certainty some of our other alternative hypothesis put there stuff.
I see the possibility of our BB being a WH and the arse end of a BH from another Universe passing through an ERB/wormhole [the Planck/quantum region where our present laws break down]
I also see that same scenario operating with BH's and Singularities.
The Singularity in BH's are other ERB's/wormholes leading to other baby Universes.

 

That thought occurred to me as well.
I believe one of the hypothetical explanations is that in a multiverse, the curvatures in other spacetimes may "touch" our spacetime and create an exchange of energy.
I admit, contemplation of such events are mindboggling.

 

Cesspool rings a bell, No comments from me then, do not understand, and wilfully stay in the 17th century.

Theory dropped.

answers not told and will never be discovered.

 

I guess we will just have to just muddle by without your incredible insights.....

 

Is there any way to salvage Write4U's excellent question (along with Prof. Hamilton's response) from the cesspool? Maybe create a new thread with it? Thanks!