• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Anyone is free the address either contention.


Gravity is not a controllable force.

Gravity is not a measurable force.


Personally insulting me only evidences that your minds are that of children in the sandbox.

:gnome:
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Let me know when you can stop, start and control the amount of the strong or the weak nuclear force.
Click to expand...


I wonder if Jerome realizes that chemical reactions are a result of electron-electron interactions within molecules and atoms in their electron shells, whereas nuclear forces (such as the strong and weak nuclear force) take place only within the nucleus and not in the electron shells?


JEROME DA GNOME said:
We do it all the time with chemical reactions.
Click to expand...




Oops, I guess he doesn't know the difference!

Well, there goes another one of Jerome's arguments up in smoke...

 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is a measurement of the relationship between myself and the Earth.

Please, how does one measure the FORCE of gravity.
Click to expand...


Okay, I'm going to assume that you're using your own definition of "force", because according to the standard physics definition, we've all pretty much outlined that the force of gravity (also called weight) is measurable.

So, Jerome, how do you define "force"?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That is a measurement of the relationship between myself and the Earth.

Please, how does one measure the FORCE of gravity.
Click to expand...

That relationship is the force of gravity...

It has magnitude.

It is directional.

It is a force.

Saying that we do not fully understand gravity in as far as we have never detected a graviton due to the weakness of the force at the levels we need to delve down to in order to find it is OK.

Saying that the relationship between you and the earth in regards to your acceleration towards earth from a rested inertial frame, is something other than the FORCE of gravity, is an act in redefining words, or complete ignorance.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Personally insulting me only evidences that your minds are that of children in the sandbox.
Click to expand...


Jerome, the reason why I and so many others here are so strong in our criticism of you is that you really don't appear to be willing to engage in any serious discussion. That being the case, how can you expect us to treat you seriously?

I mean, c'mon man. Gravity is just "made up"? What's up (or is it down) with that?


:gnome:
Click to expand...


Nice gnome, btw.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Okay, I'm going to assume that you're using your own definition of "force", because according to the standard physics definition, we've all pretty much outlined that the force of gravity (also called weight) is measurable.
Click to expand...

Weight is the measure of one object in relation to another.

It is not a measure of the force.

Were you truthful when you stated that you were a cosmology professor?
 
MattusMaximus said:
I mean, c'mon man. Gravity is just "made up"? What's up (or is it down) with that?
Click to expand...

burden_of_proof.jpg
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Weight is the measure of one object in relation to another.

It is not a measure of the force.
Click to expand...


Then you're using a very different definition of "force" than everyone else here and in the physics community. Which is precisely why I asked you what your definition of "force" is...

So how about it? How do you define "force"? Please answer the question - otherwise there is no way to continue this conversation in a constructive manner.


Were you truthful when you stated that you were a cosmology professor?
Click to expand...


Not cosmology - physics and astronomy. And yes, I am both a high school and college instructor (I'll take the moniker of "professor" as a compliment).

Are you going to answer the question now?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
A pull or a push that causes an object to move.
Click to expand...


That's close to the common definition used in intro physics but with one adjustment...

A force is a push or a pull that causes an object to accelerate. Acceleration isn't the same as motion (i.e., velocity).

If this is your definition of "force", then you claiming that weight isn't a force makes no sense - you aren't even being consistent within your own arguments. This is because we observe the force of gravity (weight) accelerating objects all the time... it's called falling.
 
MattusMaximus said:
That's close to the common definition used in intro physics but with one adjustment...

A force is a push or a pull that causes an object to accelerate. Acceleration isn't the same as motion (i.e., velocity).

If this is your definition of "force", then you claiming that weight isn't a force makes no sense - you aren't even being consistent within your own arguments. This is because we observe the force of gravity (weight) accelerating objects all the time... it's called falling.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, you defined it with respect to an object. That being the case, why do you think it can be measured without reference to any objects, as you are demanding that everyone do? If you can't define it without one, then it has no existence except in how it affects an object, and no other reality.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please Paul, how does one measure the force of gravity?

Not the relationship of objects to one another, the force of gravity.
Click to expand...

One can't measure the effect of a word, except in psychology.

However you are ignoring that gravity is a label applied to the behavior of objects, this is not the solipism forum. So the force described as gravity (which is based upon the behavior of objects) is in reference to the behavior of objects.

That is the truth. Words only take meaning through reference to external referents, so the 'force of gravity' refers only to the 'behavior of objects which appear to be drawn to each other based upon something labeled as mass and inversly proportional to another something labeled as distance', so you are foolishly engaging in semantics.

Words don't exist as abstractions only through mutal reference to referents in reality.

Duh Jerome.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not have one. This has no bearing on the fact that gravity is an unmeasurable force that can not be controlled.

Do we know that gravity is a force?
Click to expand...


Does it matter? No.

Science is not about ontology, that is a philospohy issue. It is about observing the behavior of 'things' in 'reality', so it would be a foolish philosophy to worry about the ontology of the behavior of the 'objects' in the 'universe'.

They appear to be self consistent, and it would appear that predictions can be made about the behavior.


So yes we can measure a force, silly bug.

There are two 'objects' and they display a 'proprety' that we label as 'mass', then as we alter the 'distance' between the two 'objects' we can measure what we label as 'force'.

Gosh is that you HammeGK? Take this to the philosophy forum.

Operationalism rules in science, not sophistry. Ontology is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom