E=mc2 questions?

[theorist-constant12345]

And yet neutron stars, which are composed of compacted degenerate neutrons (no "atom polarities" as you describe above) have quite strong gravitational potentials. In addition, by adding nothing but neutrons to atoms (i.e. increasing their atomic weight but not changing their place on the periodic chart) their gravitational force increases. More gravity but no polarity increase. So your theory fails yet again.

An object freely falling in a gravity well is being affected by gravity but is not "undergoing contraction." Indeed, tidal forces will tend to pull it apart if the gradient is high enough. So another fail.

As a general comment, the validity of a scientific argument is not how cool you think it sounds, or how much you like it. It is whether or not the real world operates the way you claim it does. If the real world does not match your argument, it is your argument that is flawed, not reality.

Did you miss this part about A+B=C but A and B can also exist has an entity?

Incorrect any object wants to contract, the force is centripetal isotropic to the center of mass, gravity wants to contract the surface but the density under it stops this, when you leave the surface you are expanding away from gravity, up and down are arbitrary, down is contracted towards gravity, Up is expanding away from gravity, the Universe does not have a this way up sign, you are saying the Universe is not expanding, the opposite of expand would be contract, and also again you avoid the questions conferring what i say to be true that you do not have the ability to answer my questions I ask you.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Now you are just looking facts in the face and are refusing to accept them -- and lashing out in defense of your own ignorance. To repeat a tip I gave you before: this would all look less stupid/funny/pathetic if you stopped randomly throwing in the word "entropy".

Anyway, again: energy can't be transmitted from the environment to the water if they are at the same temperature (not to mention well insulated from each other).

What facts exactly? science says the big bang started from a singular point, a singular point in space by any chance? because that is the only true logic.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What facts exactly?

These:

Again: energy can't be transmitted from the environment to the water if they are at the same temperature (not to mention well insulated from each other).

 

[billvon]

Incorrect any object wants to contract

No, most objects want to stay as they are.

the force is centripetal isotropic to the center of mass

No, it's not. You're just throwing random words together now.

gravity wants to contract the surface but the density under it stops this, when you leave the surface you are expanding away from gravity

No, when you "leave the surface" you can either go up or down.

up and down are arbitrary, down is contracted towards gravity

"Arbitrary" means the direction doesn't matter. Then you contradict yourself and say that down does have a definition and is different from up.

you are saying the Universe is not expanding

No, I'm not.

also again you avoid the questions conferring what i say to be true

Ask away.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

These:

If the environment is at an equilibrium to the water then of cause energy can not be passed on by the environment to the water, do you not not understand what an equilibrium state is?


Making words up , really, Isotropic means equal in all directions, centripetal means inwards, Isotropic centripetal means equally inwards, all mass is attracted to mass, all directions of mass have an equal attract, it is not me making words up, it is you with the lack of definition understanding, a sphere of mass in spacial volume with an equal force of attract in all directions.

And there is certainly no up or down in the present information of cosmology, I suggest you learn more.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No, most objects want to stay as they are.

No, it's not. You're just throwing random words together now.

No, when you "leave the surface" you can either go up or down.

"Arbitrary" means the direction doesn't matter. Then you contradict yourself and say that down does have a definition and is different from up.

No, I'm not.

Ask away.

Ask away.

I will start with the simple question of, if the planets were made from particles that were said to be made from the big bang, the universe is expanding by the big bang, what mechanism allowed these particles not to expand and defy Newtons second law?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

P.s - I am holding back on my paper help thread and abstract in that thread, this thread has been taken hold of by gravity and the gravity of the cesspool is strong and will draw my thread in the bin direction along with my light is an illusion thread, although this is original ideas, something science never considers.

I now intend to use the simple ideas I have to try to get a break through into science, my new alternative thread is has simple as it gets, I will keep trying, I will not give up , I am the sciencenator lol, and when I do break through into science , then science will listen to my more complex thought.

Thank you for the debate and opposing arguments .

 

[Seattle]

Ask away.

I will start with the simple question of, if the planets were made from particles that were said to be made from the big bang, the universe is expanding by the big bang, what mechanism allowed these particles not to expand and defy Newtons second law?

The planets aren't made from particles made in the big bang unless they are made of hydrogen and helium.

They are made from materials ejected from stars after they reached the end of their lifecycle.

The space between gravitationally bound objects is expanding not particles making up planets.

 

[Russ_Watters]

If the environment is at an equilibrium to the water then of cause energy can not be passed on by the environment to the water...

Yes, that's what I said. Did you forget what point you are arguing?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yes, that's what I said. Did you forget what point you are arguing?

No I did not forget the point I am trying to make , it is just not very easy to explain correctly,

 

[Russ_Watters]

No I did not forget the point I am trying to make , it is just not very easy to explain correctly,

OK, so I'm not sure where to go from here except to restate the question and let you try again:

Is the water warmer or cooler than the surrounding air/room?

And, the follow-up:
If not, since gravity takes thermal energy away from the water, where does the thermal energy come from to replace it?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

OK, so I'm not sure where to go from here except to restate the question and let you try again:

Is the water warmer or cooler than the surrounding air/room?

And, the follow-up:
If not, since gravity takes thermal energy away from the water, where does the thermal energy come from to replace it?

How can I explain, all objects on earth are perceived to be at an equilibrium but are at the same time not at an equilibrium, the water will gain from the environment energy equal to the environment , the water will lose energy to the environment if the environment has less energy that the water, the effect of gravity on energy is not noticed, the water is always at its equilibrium to gravity un-noticed except in the form of weight.
The weight is the force of gravity on the waters mass, the force is force on the waters energy/energies, the water is made of atoms, <A> electrons , <B> protons , both A and B being the attract nature by electrostatic nuclear force, A+B=C , C being an attract of both A and B, and also this would have to be consistent with that atoms do not make contact with each other without pressure, my reasoning is that A+B=C, but also A+B=D, D being the repelling.

I do not know, i think I may be stepping out of my comfort zone of knowledge, my only true thought is that if i had two solid cubes in space , of the same dimensions, they would be equally attracted to each other, and my simple look at things tells me that the cubes are only made of atoms, the only energy and force contained is atoms, so the gravity must be atoms.

 

[billvon]

I will start with the simple question of, if the planets were made from particles that were said to be made from the big bang, the universe is expanding by the big bang, what mechanism allowed these particles not to expand and defy Newtons second law?

Because all particles in the Universe are not expanding. Gravity is one mechanism by which matter is consolidated. Molecular bonds are another. Newton's Laws do not require matter to constantly expand.
Next question?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Because all particles in the Universe are not expanding. Gravity is one mechanism by which matter is consolidated. Molecular bonds are another. Newton's Laws do not require matter to constantly expand.
Next question?

Newtons laws do not require matter to constantly expand, but a single expansion from a singular point, <the big bang>, requires all matter to expand, so what mechanism kept the Milky way relatively central to the expanding mass we observe ?
I presume the Milky way is classed to being close to where the big bang happened?

 

[Seattle]

Newtons laws do not require matter to constantly expand, but a single expansion from a singular point, <the big bang>, requires all matter to expand, so what mechanism kept the Milky way relatively central to the expanding mass we observe ?
I presume the Milky way is classed to being close to where the big bang happened?

The Big Bang happened, there was inflation and after that fraction of a second for all intents and purposes the universe was as it is today (not as expansive but expansive).

There is no place central to where the BB happened. Our galaxy (the Milky Way) is nothing special as far as galaxys go.

Space is expanding but not matter that is gravitationally bound. Locally, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are actually coming together. When you look far enough away (in any direction) however everything is receding.

Look at raisins in rising dough. The raisins don't expand but the space between them do.

 

[AlexG]

Newtons laws do not require matter to constantly expand, but a single expansion from a singular point, <the big bang>, requires all matter to expand, so what mechanism kept the Milky way relatively central to the expanding mass we observe ?
I presume the Milky way is classed to being close to where the big bang happened?

The BB happened everywhere, not at one central point. All space everywhere expanded. It was, and is, not an explosion spewing matter and energy into a pre-existing space. It is the metric expansion of all space in all directions, everything expanding away from everything else (everything non-gravitationally bound). That's why it appears that we are in the center. The same viewpoint exists at everyother point in the universe.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The BB happened everywhere, not at one central point. All space everywhere expanded. It was, and is, not an explosion spewing matter and energy into a pre-existing space. It is the metric expansion of all space in all directions, everything expanding away from everything else (everything non-gravitationally bound). That's why it appears that we are in the center. The same viewpoint exists at everyother point in the universe.

Call me stupid or whatever, space has no solidity, all space everywhere expanded really? according to wiki all space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding since.


Neither yourself or Wiki make any logical sense, space has no solidity so how can something with no solidity, no mass, no medium, essentially a void, expand when there is obviously nothing to expand?
Both yourself and all of google suggest like a balloon expanding, but it would still have to expand into something,
You can not even see where the space ends or begins, I think science really has it wrong.

 

[Dr_Toad]

And with that, you can consider yourself in the same camp as some other posters here who deny science because of their own limitations in intellect or education.

But of course, your opinion is what really matters.

 

[AlexG]

You'd think by now I'd know better than to try to explain anything to you.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And with that, you can consider yourself in the same camp as some other posters here who deny science because of their own limitations in intellect or education.

But of course, your opinion is what really matters.

It is not my opinion, it is simple questions of a truthful nature, to suggest something is expanding, the truth is that there has to be something to expand into, that is Physics and simple Physics at that.