I do believe that what you are proposing is "hypothetical" no? If not, can you provide proof as normally required or should we discard your points on the basis that they are hypothetical?
fake news fake science versus debate Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! geodesic gravitational devices of combined mineral force define measure frequency of universal mathematics clocks are maths equations defined by their mineral composition values as absolute values of dynamic function the values of measure of the clock defines the frequency variable of a known value the known values are time you cant reverse science logic into belief to service your own deliberate attempt to change basic physics laws you need to provide an alternate law and show how it works saying "oh no it doesn't doesn't show anything nuclear decay as a unified field theory to oppose science as a chosen religious belief is not science its also not logic nuclear physics theoretical quantum physics quantum mechanics clock making all separate subjects you cant just mash a few together to fake a concept as a belief you need to shows links to known theory's if your stating an opinion then be sure to mention that your stating your own personal opinion of belief otherwise things start to get a bit off topic
This may be pertinent to the discussion. Quantum Black Holes Physicists could soon be creating black holes in the laboratory https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-black-holes-2007-04/ Seems to me that at microscopic levels the strong gravitational force of elementary particles could be employed to collapse spacetime around the nanoscale BH. If that would be observable is another question.
Haha, you talk with a specialist. I was doing this with all clocks since age of 5 (on the other hand, i rarely rebuilt these clocks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). So yes, i know what a clock is. If atomic is not matter, what is it then ? (mechanical or digital is not fundamental, you can forget) We suppose that the same physical phenomenom take localy the same time everywhere in the Univers. Actually, this is what we have observed. Per example light celerity is constant, everywhere. No, depending on the clock, their calibration can vary, they remain "clocks". Thats quiet a good joke. What "sensor" do you propose then for this purpose ? I suppose you have an idea to measure the "slowing down or accelerating" (if any...) of time ? Ok ok... so what are these "calibrated" devices supposed to measure ? Only time and not passing of time ? Other ?
And you are calling yourself "an expert". Clocks are calibrated to the conventional second, which is a minute divided by 60, a minute which is also and hour divided by 60, and hour which is a day divided by 12. Then, the primeval measure was the day. You can read about it in old stories when characters inside say it took them "3 days walking" to reach the other town. The division into hours, minutes and seconds was just to have a more accurate measure of shorter periods. The atomic clock is based on the period of a second as well. The measure of time - which is not a dimension- is based in comparing the regular movement of earth's rotation to be compared with the motion of the rest of bodies. You compare the motion of the rotation of earth with your motion traveling from New York to Florida. The measure will give you the hours taken. That is all what time is about. Any other definition of time as something else is just peanuts. My science is way over everything you have learned before. My science can be tested. You can test my definition of time as the comparison of motion of bodies, having one of the motions to be regular. You won't be capable to prove it incorrect but totally the contrary, you can use any regular motion to make it a clock and prove my definition 100% correct. My science goes straight to the target, it is infallible. Next birthday. rather to say you are 55 years old, you can say it "scientifically": you have traveled 55 times around the sun. Having time not "passing thru", no flowing, do dilating, then the background theory for the existence of black holes is discarded and black holes end in the limbo, or better to say, in the trash can.
Moderator note: Rarely have I seen a thread so full of complete nonsense and trolling, on this forum. The following moderation actions have been taken: The sock puppet troll calling himself Muhat has been permanently banned. All of his posts have been removed from this thread, since none of them had any useful content. All replies to Muhat, and related content, have been removed from this thread. Members are advised not to feed trolls. The user Wisher has been permanently banned from sciforums, since he or she demonstrated in several threads that he or she has nothing useful to contribute to the forum. river has received a warning for trolling this thread and for making false claims about science. Due to accumulated warning points, river will be taking a short break from sciforums. As a result of the deletion of the useless material from this thread, it has gone from around 520 posts to around 220 at this time. I note also that several other members who contributed to this thread also posted low-value (typically off-topic) content, but at this stage no additional warnings have been issued for that. The matter of the member Luchito, who has been repeatedly making claims without any attempt to support them with argument or evidence, will be addressed shortly.
Luchito: You claim to have "facts" and/or theoretical arguments to support your claim that black holes do not exist. It is now time for you to post some of them. Here are the matters I require that you address, specifically: 1. You claimed: "A scrutiny made on the base foundation of the theoretical background supporting the existence of a black hole can easily show its falseness."Please expand on what you mean by this. What particular points in the theoretical background don't stand up to scrutiny, and why? 2. You stated: "The contradictions in such a theory are enormous, gigantic, greater than the entire size of universe plus four more blocks further."Please point out ONE contradiction in the theory of black holes or relativity. Please be specific, not vague. Explain where the contradiction arises, what the contradiction is. Support your argument with appropriate evidence, if the contradiction you refer to is not in the theory itself. On the other hand, if the contradiction is a theoretical error, please point out exactly what the error is. Presumably, you will need mathematical support. You claim: "I have explained with good details to a group of physics students, all the failures of such black hole theory"So, it should be a simple matter for you to repeat your explanation here. 3. You have so far failed to address the following questions. Please answer them: How do you account for massive energy output of active galactic nuclei? How do you account for the observed orbits of stars around Saggitarius A*? What is Saggitarius A*? What happens to massive stars - like that one that's 100 times the mass of our Sun that you mentioned - when it's hydrogen runs out and it's nuclear fusion processes stop? What stops the gravitational collapse? 4. You claim: "you apply the "black holes" formula to the star given as example right above, and your black hole won't be even capable to attract flies surrounding around it... ha ha ha ha."Please demonstrate this, mathematically. 5. You claim: "I ... have ... revised the existence of black holes duplicating their possible formation and influence, to come out with the solid conclusion the existence of those bodies are nothing but pure imaginations. Doing so, I have found several methods to debunk such absurd theory. And all these methods are indeed able to be duplicated in lab, observed in nature, being empirical demonstration from beginning to end...."Please summarise your methods used to debunk the "absurd theory". If you have published your "debunking" somewhere, please provide a reference or link to your work. Have any of your "methods" actually been duplicated in a lab, or are you merely saying that this could be done? If the work has been done, please provide appropriate references. 6. You claim: "I can easily prove there is not such "time dilatation" with simple house made experiments, and the whole famous theory ends as a joke."Please provide details of a simple house-made experiment that you could use or have used to prove that time dilation does not exist. If you have published your results, please provide appropriate references to the publication(s). 7. You claim: "Black holes do not exist because its original formulas and equations are based on a theory not based on reality.... and the theory of relativity is as false as a fourteen dollars bill." Please post something (ONE thing will do) that shows that the theory of relativity is false. If you have published your findings, please provide appropriate references to the relevant publication(s). --- I trust that you will address the above matters. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then it would be reasonable to conclude that you are another troll. If that is the case, I will impose an appropriate penalty, in accordance with our site rules. Please make sure you respond in a timely manner. Make your response to the above your first priority in discussing this topic. Thank you!
Luchito, Lest you think I'm unwilling to help you, I will respond to some of your recent questions. You're right. But you will be well aware that this is completely in line with what the theory of relativity tells us, no? Yes. That's one reason. The Global Positioning system (GPS) would not work correctly if there was no time dilation, for example. You've asked a difficult question, yet you give a definitive answer without explanation. Why do you ask the question, if you're not interested in what other people have to say? Do you assume you already have all the answers? Are you actually interested in what other people think? That's not how science is done, Luchito, as you will know from your own household experiments etc. You don't start by assuming that the theory you're testing must be right. If you could assume that, there would be no need to do the experiment. What we actually do, as you will know, is to use some theory or other to predict what we "should" see when we do the experiment. Then, we do the experiment and one of two things can happen: the results match the prediction, in which case we see the theory hasn't been falsified (or gains support); or the results don't match the prediction, in which case we look for possible sources of error in the experiment or, failing that, throw out the theory and try to find a better one. You're also right that the universe is not "ruled" by our human laws. Our laws of physics are descriptions of the universe, not prescriptions. Do you understand the difference? The thing is, though, that science isn't a religion. It's not about what we "believe". That is secondary to whether the science works - whether it makes predictions that match experimental results. As scientists, you and I don't believe that the speed of light is or isn't constant because it's our religion (right?), but because when we measure its speed in lots of different experiments it either is or isn't found to be constant. So which is it, in that case, Luchito? You've studied the experimental evidence, I assume. Do the experiments find that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, or not? You tell me. My own understanding is that they show it is constant, but I'm very happy to look at any references you have to peer-reviewed experiments that show something different. Feel free to provide them, if you have them. I don't insist on that. You haven't provided any new knowledge yet, but I'm listening. I'm sure you'll provide it, following my request in my previous post. Won't you?
Yes this was some joke, being a specialist (not expert uhh...) at 5 years in clocks...if you take it seriously i hope you have better understaning of your own knowledge. But it is true that actually i know the composition of clocks. And "time" is some of my center of interest, so yes, i can probably have some insight about your believ on what "clocks" should be. So an hour is a day divided by 12... Personnaly i would say 24 on Earth. I dont know what the "primeval" mesure was, perhaps "the day" was the period referenced by the moon, who knows... The division into dollar and cents was just to have more accurate mesure of shorter prices. And ? Whats the point ? So clocks were calitrated for the day, then for seconds.... all clocks have the same calibration. Ancient clocks were not clocks... very confusing. Sure, 1 dollar bill is based on the value of a cent as well.... Atomic clocks are based on a periodic phenomenom taking place at the scale of the atome. They are not more "based" on seconds as the one dollar bill is based on cents. The second is just part of the SI (and MKS or MGS). Furthermore, if we discover one day that the phenomena this kind of clock is based uppon, are not universal, we will surely adjust or change this kind of clock. For the moment it is ok. Why time is not a dimension ? What is your argument ? Is it possible that time is a dimension and that time is not a dimension, at the same time ? So everything we would say that is not "explained" in this particular post about time would be crap... I hope you saved the content of the post, to be part of "your" science encyclopedia. Your science ? Are you the owner of it ? Or is it other kind of science we dont know about yet ? Nobody need to test "your" science about time and clocks in the way you talk here about. You only talk about things knowed and used everyday by anyone since decades. Not sure you know how experiments works. And the target is the trash can, i agree. There is nothing scientific to talk about time in years...because of the variability of the duration of the year when you convert it to seconds. You could eventualy use the day, but not the year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-SI_units_mentioned_in_the_SI How many seconds last a year in the SI system unit ? Your answer : ........ Having 1 dollar bill not "transform into green piggys", no flying around, do dilating, then the background theory for the existence of customers is discarded and customers ends in the limbo (jumbo limbo !) or better to say, in the trash can. Yeah, into the trash can the target.
I believe that they do..... and the idea of energy never truly being "destroyed" may become a part of the explanation for their purpose and function. I don't know how to explain this but I am pretty sure that the second law will play a role in explaining their function also.
