• 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

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Keep in mind that this thread began as a troll of me. (Read the second post in this thread)...sniped...
Click to expand...
No it did not - the thread was started by me in the mistaken assumption that JEROME DA GNOME had a serious point for his comments.

Of course everyone will see that he is just a silly troll unless he has actual evidence for his calims.

Still waiting..........
What is the evidence for your claim that gravity is not strong enough?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Keep in mind that this thread began as a troll of me. (Read the second post in this thread)

Look Here for further understanding, post #17


:gnome:
Click to expand...
Yes yes yes. We've all acknowledged that you don't believe that saying "black holes are made-up" and "black holes do not exist" are equivalent statements. We've moved on from that. Can you also, please?

What makes you think that gravity is not strong enough to cause black holes?
 
I would like him to show the math that shows gravity isn't so-called strong enough.

He also reminds me of the old math question many a math teacher has used.

Would you like to be paid $1,000 a day for a 30 day month

or

$0.02 the first day $0.04 the second day, doubling the money paid each day for 30 days.

Gravity is weak at the start and doesn't count for much, but it only grows stronger as more mass is added until it is the only thing that counts.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Yes yes yes. We've all acknowledged that you don't believe that saying "black holes are made-up" and "black holes do not exist" are equivalent statements. We've moved on from that. Can you also, please?
Click to expand...

Of course, that still does nothing to dismiss the "make-believe" part of that statement - a fact that the maker of the statement still chooses to ignore.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The pertinent question is: Is the gravity of a single atom measurable?
Click to expand...
As previously mentioned:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Click to expand...


and if you want to know about mass:

http://education.jlab.org/qa/particlemass_01.html
http://education.jlab.org/qa/atomicstructure_01.html
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
If this is so, why is the universe expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate?

Should not all matter be coalescing due to gravity?
Click to expand...


As you obviously haven't bothered to read the page, further down (just under the part about calculating gravitational force) is this:
G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]/gm[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]. That means that if you put two 1-gram objects 1 centimeter apart from one another, they will attract each other with the force of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne. A dyne is equal to about 0.001 gram weight, meaning that if you have a dyne of force available, it can lift 0.001 grams in Earth's gravitational field. So 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne is a miniscule force.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, are you planning to dispute Newton and Einstein on the grounds that you don't understand them?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
If this is so, why is the universe expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate?
Click to expand...
Because there is some kind of vacuum energy ('dark energy') stretching it.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Should not all matter be coalescing due to gravity?
Click to expand...
See above. :D

Actually, these are very good questions, I think, and there is no clear-cut scientific answer (that I'm aware of). A remark about your second question might be that we are riding on a pretty sharply defined critical energy density in Universe which prevented it from immediate collapse or rupture. Obviously, since, well, the cosmos is still there.
 
Last edited:
Also, gravity is acting locally among and within galaxies. The expansion of space is offset or not noticeable on "small scales" by gravitational attraction.
 
Olowkow said:
Also, gravity is acting locally among and within galaxies.
Click to expand...
Locally, for real?

I mean, why isn't gravity acting on the tripulation on the ISS? On TV, I always see those guys hovering around weightlessly. It's very funny, isn't it? But, from what I heard, the space station is only 300km or so away from Earth. That's pretty local, isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
Locally, for real?

I mean, why isn't gravity acting on the tripulation on the ISS? On TV, I always see those guys hovering around weightlessly. It's very funny, isn't it? But, from what I heard, the space station is only 300km or so away from Earth. That's pretty local, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


This is a common misconception about orbital motion. The people inside the ISS are not weightless - true weightlessness is defined as a total lack of gravity. In fact, it is gravity which is keeping them in orbit in the first place. Without the gravitational force exerted on them by Earth, they would fly off into space.

The reason why the astronauts aboard the ISS appear weightless is because they are in a state of perpetual free-fall around the Earth. They are falling towards the Earth at precisely the same rate as the Earth is curving away from beneath them, thus they never hit the ground - they just keep going around and around...

And not only is the ISS falling, but everything inside of it is falling as well. So, from the point of view of an astronaut inside the ISS, you have the sensation of "weightlessness" - it's just like when you're on a roller coaster that hits the big drop on the ride. You feel much lighter than normal because the coaster is falling out from underneath you. Now imagine the coaster falling completely out from underneath you for an extended time, then you'll get the idea of apparent weightlessness in action.

Here's a good link which will hopefully explain this in more detail...

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/mmedia/vectors/sat.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom