• 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

Paulhoff said:
First he is getting at nothing, and second, rub your hands together to make them hot and put the thermometer in between them and before you mother comes back to your room but it back in your mouth, geeeeeeeeee.

Paul

:) :) :)

a mouth thermometer stays at the highest temp. that is reads.
Click to expand...


OMG, you have a temp of three hundred degrees!

(If you child has a lighter)
 
Paulhoff said:
Children do this all the time.

First, let us take the moon, now on the surface of the moon the gravity is about 1/6 of earth’s, but that is on the surface, so……..

Mean density of the moon is 3.3464 g/cm³

Mean density of the earth is 5.5153 g/cm³

So the moon is about .6067 as dense as the earth

Now the mean radius of the moon is 1,737.1 km

And the earth’s mean radius is 6,371 km

So the moon is about .27265 is size of the earth
So multiply .6067 times .27265 and we get .16543 g’s or about 1/6 g at its surface.

So a 10 cm orange is about 7.848 ^ -9 of the earth’s radius

It has the density of about 1 g/cm³

So the orange is about .18131 as dense as the earth

So multiply 7.848 ^ -9 times .18131 and we get 1.423 ^ -9 g’s or about 702,759,526 times weaker than the earth's gravity at its surface.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Nice math, you forgot to measure the FORCE of gravity.

You have created a comparison of different objects to one another.

We are talking about the FORCE of gravity.
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
If we could not measure gravity, we could not send any satellites in orbit and/or to the other planets. If one knows the mass of any object one can easily calculate the force of gravity of that object.
Click to expand...


Correct, in gravity assist trajectories we calculate, then physically demonstrate the interaction with and then the departure from the influence of various gravitational fields.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
The point is the force is neither measurable nor controllable.
Click to expand...


As indicated above, it is both measurable and controllable.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Already addressed. That is the relationship between two objects that is being measured, not a measure of the force of gravity.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the force of gravity is an imaginary force, as demonstrated by general relativity. If you want an example of this then just jump of a cliff, you will perceive no gravitational force, until of course, the base of the cliff slams into you.


JEROME DA GNOME said:
Really, we make objects that have different measurable and controllable gravity?

Such as?
Click to expand...


Sure, a 10 Kg mass generates a different gravitational field (or space-time curvature) then a 1,000 Kg mass of the same dimensions, both are equally producible and that production is entirely controllable.
 
I sure hope for JEROME that the woman in his life (I'm out on a limb thinking that he has one) didn't have this much trouble explaining sex to him.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Reality Check said:
A really simple way to measure the force of gravity for a really simple person: Cavendish experiment
Click to expand...

While a great link, and fantastic explanation, Jerome will discount this, because he will claim that it measures the gravity compared to two masses.

He continues to be willfully ignorant of the fact that the force of gravity is the force exerted of masses against each other.
 
Shalamar said:
While a great link, and fantastic explanation, Jerome will discount this, because he will claim that it measures the gravity compared to two masses.

He continues to be willfully ignorant of the fact that the force of gravity is the force exerted of masses against each other.
Click to expand...

I agree - for some reason Jerome just does not know what a force actually is and that all forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak interaction) are between 2 objects.
 
And just think, after 200 plus years after that experiment, we still have people like JEROME.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Wow! :eek:

Yet another complete blank in Jerome's scientific knowledge! :rolleyes:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not deny that gravity exists, that was a straw-man someone threw out there.

The point is the force is neither measurable nor controllable.
Click to expand...


Uhhmm... it seems that you've contradicted yourself here. If you "do not deny that gravity exists" yet in the next sentence you state that the gravitational "force is [not] measurable", then that makes no sense.

If you agree that it exists, then you should be able to measure it. N'est pa?

Please explain how anything you just said is supposed to make sense - my woo translator broke on the 10th page of this thread.
 
Another physics lesson for everyone (listen up Jerome, you might learn something)...


JEROME DA GNOME said:
Nice math, you forgot to measure the FORCE of gravity.

You have created a comparison of different objects to one another.

We are talking about the FORCE of gravity.
Click to expand...


Another way we look at forces in physics is as an interaction between two objects. As such, it makes no sense whatsoever to refer to a "force" in isolation - since, by definition, force is an interaction then there must be two objects that are doing the interacting.

We know this, for example, through our understanding of Newton's Third Law.

Some examples:

1. I hit the computer keypad - it hits my finger right back.
2. You kick a soccer ball - it kicks your foot right back.
3. An apple falls to the Earth - the Earth falls upwards towards the apple.

To speak of a single, isolated "force" in terms of only one object makes no sense; how can something in isolation interact with something when it's the only thing? I really think that you've got your definitions all mixed up - perhaps you are talking about a field?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom