Or, if it doesn't get absorbed, how long before Farsight's box turns into a black hole?
Why isn't the Earth a black hole by now?
John T. Nordberg's theory...
- Thread starter curious45
- Start date
Why isn't the Earth a black hole by now?
The re-radiation of energy!
Edit... this is staying with http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html for what do we know about what we're talking about?
Can't say I feel anywhere even close to figgering that.Baez/Bunn said:
Last edited:
Has, Farsight, ever stated that?
Hint: they aren't made of energy.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I see no problem with an artist who is drawing a picture of an existing structure, while fucking at the same time. And I don't see the sheet fucking anything , except perhaps with your mind. Stop the vulgar language. I's not very scientific.
I think the rendering was made for purposes of showing the structure as it appears in nature. How else would you transmit over the internet a sheet with the actual atoms and a big magnifier?
OK,here is a picture of a sheet of grapheme as seen through an electron microscope.
and
http://atomsmoleculesandevensmaller.weebly.com/the-discovery-of-the-atom-and-seeing-atoms.html
We cannot see smaller than this scale, thus the picture lacks resolution. But I am confident in the science that allows for an artist rendering at greater detail. There does seem to be an exact mathematical order to the structure, would you agree to that?
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Pl learn some Physics..
You are making too many mistakes. First you pop in and justify M/r as linear mass density for a sphere which is meaningless. You do not correct yourself despite clear maths and on top of that arrogantly lock the thread. Locking is your failure that moderation is not enough.
And now this. Atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and they are 99% energy!
Simpler example if you cannot understand the above. As farsight is telling you, increase in mass with velocity. Second, atom bomb. The original element is higher in mass as compared to its fissioned parts, means binding energy was reflecting as mass in original.
Pl do not misteach that energy is nothing but accounting system. Withdraw. Have you heard of Dark Energy? What all it is doing?
Another example of your lack of insight is your attempt to trade the moderation action with qreeus. You seem to be failing both in technical intervention and on the general moderation matters.
Last edited:
So fast atoms gravitate more strongly than slow atoms.
So photons can affect gravitation, too.
So if you take some stuff out of the box (photons), there's less stuff causing gravitational effects in there.
Already did that. How about you?
I haven't made any so far in this thread, as far as I'm aware.
M/r is clearly a mass divided by a distance, which is a linear mass density. You can see that by considering the units alone.
Are you talking about the thread in which you started insulting another member, that then descended into a nasty flame war? That closed thread?
You remain as wrong as ever. Energy is not a substance. Atoms aren't in any sense made of energy. For them to be made of energy, energy would need to be a substance that things can be made of.
I have already addressed Farsight's post. As for the atom bomb, that shows that you can convert mass into motion of particles (or into new particles in some cases). Want to know how much motion you can get out from a given mass? That's where you need an accounting system. We call that "energy".
Yes. There is binding energy associated with the forces that bind matter together. The binding energy is an accounting system that helps us to quantify the strength of attactive forces that bind nucleii, for example.
Do you think energy is substance?
Instead of sitting there criticising my concept of energy, how about you tell us all what the correct concept is? You're the expert, after all. Aren't you?
Yes, I have heard of dark energy. It is energy associated with the so-called "cosmological constant" of general relativity. It is supposed to be descriptive of the accelerating expansion of the universe. I'm not across all the details. Why do you think it helps your case?
You seem to be failing both in technical intervention and on the general moderation matters.[/QUOTE]
Thankyou for your feedback, for what it's worth.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Dug up another xample of mathematical precision in nature. Even if it is man-made, which IMO proves the ability of mathematically creating a mathematically functioning structure (mechanism).
Seems to me that the physical objects are aligned and exhibit the same mathematical formations at all observable scales.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/lutetium-iron-oxyde-computer/?utm_source=ZME Science Newsletter&utm_campaign=d9dccbbc83-ZME_Science_Daily3_6_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3b5aad2288-d9dccbbc83-242681749&ct=t(ZME_Science_Daily11_8_2014)
Seems to me that the physical objects are aligned and exhibit the same mathematical formations at all observable scales.
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
James R,
I am surprised at your unwillingness to learn. M/r has the units of linear mass density but it's meaningless for sphere. It has meaning for cylinder or rectangular rods etc where cross section area is uniform.
If M/r of a uniform sphere is 10 kg per meter, what will be the mass if the radius is doubled, Apply your linear density and tell me. You cannot.
But if the linear mass density of an uniform cylinder is 10 kg per meter then it's mass doubles on doubling the length. So do not take high stand, pl correct yourself. Many lesser equipped people regard you here, do not misteach them.
And on the second point, what is substance? I told you that neutrons and protons so called substance are 99% energy. An accounting system cannot give 99% mass to your substance. Can it? Pl update your knowledge.
you are taking your role very casually. A judge never trades. OK either I will remove your posts or infract you with 10 points, that's no moderation, that's comical. By infracting him with 10 points, his posts become publishable? Blood money justice system here at SF.
I am surprised at your unwillingness to learn. M/r has the units of linear mass density but it's meaningless for sphere. It has meaning for cylinder or rectangular rods etc where cross section area is uniform.
If M/r of a uniform sphere is 10 kg per meter, what will be the mass if the radius is doubled, Apply your linear density and tell me. You cannot.
But if the linear mass density of an uniform cylinder is 10 kg per meter then it's mass doubles on doubling the length. So do not take high stand, pl correct yourself. Many lesser equipped people regard you here, do not misteach them.
And on the second point, what is substance? I told you that neutrons and protons so called substance are 99% energy. An accounting system cannot give 99% mass to your substance. Can it? Pl update your knowledge.
you are taking your role very casually. A judge never trades. OK either I will remove your posts or infract you with 10 points, that's no moderation, that's comical. By infracting him with 10 points, his posts become publishable? Blood money justice system here at SF.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This may not be directly related to the subject, but I found it an interesting finding.
I read somewhere that an atom is actually 99.999% empty space relative to the combined size of the individual particles that make up
the atom.
The mass will be doubled of course, assuming that the linear density remains constant. If you make some other assumption about the linear density of the sphere, the result may well be different, of course. Your problem is underspecified at this point, so we are forced to make assumptions.
I already addressed this point in a previous post. You are correct that an accounting system cannot contribute substance. You're starting to get it now. Keep working on it.
Did q-reeus appoint you to speak on his behalf regarding posts of his that were moderated? If not, why are you butting in?
Questions about moderation can be posted in the Site Feedback or Open Government forums. They have nothing to do with Nordberg's theory.
An often used analogy is if the nucleus of an atom was the size of a pea, and we put it in the middle of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, then the electrons would be orbiting around the outer grandstand seats.
This is why under certain conditions, as in stars at the end of their lives, pressures can be exerted that overcome the EDP and even the NDP and form NS's and BH's.....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Question: Could it be possible that the "accounting" (the mathematics) are causal to energy?
I don't understand your question. Please explain what you mean.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Let me try by way of Paddo's post.
If I understand Paddo, the collapse of atoms allows for a greater density (number)of atoms in the same occupied space. As space is squeezed out the mass of the atom becomes relatively larger than in its original form. You can squeeze more mass together, resulting in a larger mass in a smaller space, creating enormous gravity in a relatively much smaller space, than it's original size, such as has happened in a NS or BH, which once were stars of enormous size before they collapsed into a miniscule size single object. Somewhat similar to completely filling Paddo's arena with peas, instead of just one.
It seems to me that the "accounting" (the mathematics) of such an event is very much involved. The fact that not all stars end up as NS or BH, suggests a natural mathematical function which either allows for total collapse or restricts the collapse to be expressed only as a red giant or a white dwarf.
Last edited:
Write4U:
Typically, atomic nuclei are about 10,000 to 100,000 times smaller than atoms due to the tighter binding of nucleons compared to electrons. So, a neutron star is much more dense that atomic matter.
The further gravitational collapse of a neutron star is prevented by a quantum-mechanical effect, up to a point. If the mass of the star is too large, further collapse can't be prevented and the result is a black hole.
When a star collapses to a neutron star, the protons and electrons get jammed together, forming neutrons. Those neutrons, electrically neutral, are bound together by strong nuclear forces, as opposed to the binding of an electron to an atomic nucleus by the weaker electromagnetic force.
Typically, atomic nuclei are about 10,000 to 100,000 times smaller than atoms due to the tighter binding of nucleons compared to electrons. So, a neutron star is much more dense that atomic matter.
The further gravitational collapse of a neutron star is prevented by a quantum-mechanical effect, up to a point. If the mass of the star is too large, further collapse can't be prevented and the result is a black hole.
That's right, and the process is well understood. If a star has less than a certain amount of mass, it will end its life as a white dwarf star. If it's a little more massive, it can end its life as a neutron star. And if it's more massive again then it will end as a black hole.
I would say that the arrangements are approximated by a mathematical order.
Except, you pathetic crackpot, that when one is using spherically symmetric coordinates, like one does in the Schwarzschild metric, and one is speaking of a radius from the center of the coordinates, like one does when using the Schwarzschild metric to describe a possible black hole, then giving a radius describes a sphere of that radius centered on the origin of the coordinates. This is one of the advantages of using a set of spherically symmetric coordinates.
But, by all means, please show what a petty idiot you are by repeating the same mistake over and over again, in thread after thread. You are a great student of Farsight.