New insight found in black hole collisions

February 26, 2015, University of Texas at Dallas
In a binary black hole system, the directions of the spin angular momentum of each black hole (red cone arrows) and of the orbital angular momentum for the system (blue cone arrow) change, or precess, over time. Credit: Midori Kitagawa

New research by an astrophysicist at The University of Texas at Dallas provides revelations about the most energetic event in the universe—the merging of two spinning, orbiting black holes into a much larger black hole.

The work by Dr. Michael Kesden, assistant professor of physics at UT Dallas, and his colleagues provides for the first time solutions to decades-old equations that describe conditions as two black holes in a binary system orbit one another and spiral in toward collision.

The research is available online and in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.

Kesden, who this month was selected as a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellow, said the solutions should significantly impact not only the study of black holes, but also the search for in the cosmos. Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that two massive objects orbiting in a binary system should move closer together as the system emits a type of radiation called gravitational waves.

"An accelerating charge, like an electron, produces electromagnetic radiation, including visible light waves. Similarly, any time you have an accelerating mass, you can produce gravitational waves," Kesden said.

"In a binary black hole system, where you have two massive objects orbiting each other and exerting forces on each other, they are accelerating and emitting gravitational waves. The energy lost to gravitational waves causes the black holes to spiral closer and closer together until they merge, which is the most energetic event in the universe.

"That energy, rather than going out as visible light, which is easy to see, goes out as gravitational waves, which are very weak and much more difficult to detect."

While Einstein's theories predict the existence of gravitational waves, they have not been directly detected. But the ability to "see" gravitational waves would open up a new window to view and study the universe.

Optical telescopes can capture photos of visible objects, such as stars and planets, and radio and infrared telescopes can reveal additional information about invisible energetic events. Gravitational waves would provide yet another medium through which to examine astrophysical phenomena, Kesden said.

"Using gravitational waves as an observational tool, you could learn about the characteristics of the black holes that were emitting those waves billions of years ago, information such as their masses and mass ratios," Kesden said. "That's important data for more fully understanding the evolution and nature of the universe."

This year, a large-scale physics experiment called the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) aims to be the first to directly detect gravitational waves. LIGO is the largest project funded by the National Science Foundation.

"The equations that we solved will help predict the characteristics of the gravitational waves that LIGO would expect to see from binary black hole mergers," Kesden said. "We're looking forward to comparing our solutions to the data that LIGO collects."

The equations Kesden solved deal specifically with the spin of binary and a phenomenon called precession.

Angular momentum is a measure of the amount of rotation a spinning object has. Spin angular momentum not only includes the speed at which an object rotates, but also the direction in which that spin points. For a simple object like a spinning figure skater, the direction of angular momentum would point up.

Another type of angular momentum, called orbital angular momentum, applies to a system in which objects are in orbit about one another. Orbital angular momentum also has a magnitude and a direction.

In an astrophysical setting like a binary black hole system, the directions of the individual types of angular momenta change, or precess, over time.

"In these systems, you have three angular momenta, all changing direction with respect to the plane of the orbit—the two spin angular momenta and the one ," Kesden said. "The solutions that we now have describe the orientations of the precessing black hole spins."

In addition to solving existing equations, Kesden also derived equations that will allow scientists to statistically track spin precession from black hole formation to merger far more efficiently and quickly.

"We can do it millions of times faster than was previously possible," he said. "With these solutions, we can create computer simulations that follow black hole evolution over billions of years. A simulation that previously would have taken years can now be done in seconds. But it's not just faster—there are things that we can learn from these simulations that we just couldn't learn any other way."

Explore further: A recoiling, supermassive black hole

More information: Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081103 – Published 24 February 2015 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.081103

Related Stories

A recoiling, supermassive black hole

January 26, 2015

When galaxies collide, the central supermassive black holes that reside at their cores will end up orbiting one another in a binary pair, at least according to current simulations. Einstein's general theory of relativity ...

How fast do black holes spin?

February 14, 2014

There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their secrets hide behind ...

Recommended for you

Team finds evidence for carbon-rich surface on Ceres

December 10, 2018

A team led by Southwest Research Institute has concluded that the surface of dwarf planet Ceres is rich in organic matter. Data from NASA's Dawn spacecraft indicate that Ceres's surface may contain several times the concentration ...

InSight lander 'hears' Martian winds

December 7, 2018

NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport InSight lander, which touched down on Mars just 10 days ago, has provided the first ever "sounds" of Martian winds on the Red Planet. A ...

131 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

douglaskostyk
4 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
"That energy, rather than going out as visible light, which is easy to see, goes out as gravitational waves, which are very weak and much more difficult to detect."

It is not weak; it is just difficult to detect. It carries a large amount of energy, but most will pass by our detectors, and us, unnoticed.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
"That energy, rather than going out as visible light, which is easy to see, goes out as gravitational waves, which are very weak and much more difficult to detect."

It is not weak; it is just difficult to detect. It carries a large amount of energy, but most will pass by our detectors, and us, unnoticed.


Gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance. Force of gravity is at a maximum at the surface of the object, beyond that point whether it is weak or strong depends on proximity of distance in relative to your position from it.
nswanberg
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
What would happen if the spin angular momentum were opposites? Do the simulations show a possibility of matter escaping from the binary black hole system during the merging process? Could explain a lot of things.
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
There are no black holes, just matter confined by primer fields as explained by david Lapoint. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields, his bowl shaped dipole magnets are revolutionary and will redefine how we view the cosmos in both the macro and the micro. Magnetism not gravity.

https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Benni claimed
Force of gravity is at a maximum at the surface of the object, beyond that point whether it is weak or strong depends on proximity of distance in relative to your position from it.
You missed other caveats surely, especially mantle & crust density, Eg. Its clear re Earth that highest gravitational force is not at the surface...
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Stevepidge claimed
There are no black holes, just matter confined by primer fields as explained by david Lapoint. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields, his bowl shaped dipole magnets are revolutionary and will redefine how we view the cosmos in both the macro and the micro. Magnetism not gravity.
https://www.youtu...gyJ0k8Kw
Even though gravity is ~10^39 times weaker than EM, that is a the pole to pole attraction or repulsion BUT, all EM is polarised thus sums to zero very close to its source UNLESS there is a significant current, whereas gravity has no polarisation and thus is effectively stronger comparatively.

ie. Evidence shows planetary orbit are gravitationally bound not EM :-)

Eg Is there ANY effect upon Earth's orbit such as wobble, perturbation etc as Sol's magnetic field regularly reverses or even from the rather more rapid oscillations accompanying Sol's heliospheric field ?

Will look at the video when on a better device, cheers
LagomorphZero
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2015
Gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance. Force of gravity is at a maximum at the surface of the object, beyond that point whether it is weak or strong depends on proximity of distance in relative to your position from it.


@benni: Yet the amount of energy in the wave remains the same as douglaskostyk correctly claimed, it is only the density of the energy that has changed, from stronger to weaker.

@nswanberg: When the spin angular momentum are going in opposite directions, the merger would likely eject the black hole from the galaxy. A google search on 'rogue black holes' should be able to help explain how it would occur.
Tektrix
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2015
. . . his bowl shaped dipole magnets are revolutionary and will redefine how we view the cosmos in both the macro and the micro.


No, they won't.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
Benni claimed

Force of gravity is at a maximum at the surface of the object, beyond that point whether it is weak or strong depends on proximity of distance in relative to your position from it.
You missed other caveats surely, especially mantle & crust density, Eg. Its clear re Earth that highest gravitational force is not at the surface...


@MM- Hey there Mr Meteorologist, I guess the reason I know I'm right is because I took more physics than you did in my studies of Electrical/Nuclear Engineering as compared to your Meteorology studies. In short you don't know what you're talking about, again.
adave
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2015
I don't see how two event horizons can coalesce. I know they have thought about that. Relativity is active at contact. At the event horizon how can any black hole be different from another. QM might say they are entangled. Even if their orbit causes them to bounce, the surfaces will never split apart. Even if they are separated in space they will stick together in time. They look more like L. Susskind's wormhole entanglement. And they can never penetrate the other. Some black holes might be a mass of smaller black holes and have multiple singularities. The direction of a black hole axis will probably not point in the galactic axis if an extragalactic black hole attempted a merger. Perhaps black hole mergers prefer to line up the axis.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Benni claimed
@MM- Hey there Mr Meteorologist, I guess the reason I know I'm right is because I took more physics than you did in my studies of Electrical/Nuclear Engineering as compared to your Meteorology studies.
No, u r confused. Not a meteorologist or ever claimed to be, your pattern of errors suggest U r not thinking/recollecting at all well :-(

Reacting with claim of uni study WITHOUT showing y gravity should ONLY be highest at the surface of a body, goes to prove u havent studied gravity & protocols at uni !

Benni claimed
In short you don't know what you're talking about, again
Really ?

In context with my post u r therefore claiming r gravity at surface of a planetary body is ALWAYS highest regardless of comparative density of material Eg. Earth's crust at lower density than that of the mantle closer to core.

Yes/No ?

Logically therefore, in the context of density above, U claim volume is more important than mass in actual strength of gravity ?
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
Two black holes in a decaying orbit must release immense amounts of enrgy, yet if this is in the form of gravity waves it is not manifest and does not produce any effect we can discern. I simply do not believe this, such events must produce measurable effects. The alternative is that the theory is wrong, and gravity waves do not exist.
@MM
ie. Evidence shows planetary orbit are gravitationally bound not EM :-)
Evidence equally shows that planetary orbit is caused by expansion, and gravity is not required. Gravity is a non-existent force invented to help us model reality, Einstein represented it as a "dimple" in the "space-time continuum", an almost wilder venture into la-la land. Has anybody ever seen evidence of the existence of gravity waves, a "space-time continuum", etc.? Like Dark Matter, these are all inventions built on the imaginary sand of "gravity", which in reality does not exist.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2015
Gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance. Force of gravity is at a maximum at the surface of the object, beyond that point whether it is weak or strong depends on proximity of distance in relative to your position from it.


@benni: Yet the amount of energy in the wave remains the same as douglaskostyk correctly claimed, it is only the density of the energy that has changed, from stronger to weaker.

@nswanberg: When the spin angular momentum are going in opposite directions, the merger would likely eject the black hole from the galaxy. A google search on 'rogue black holes' should be able to help explain how it would occur.


Be my guest, I'm not sure you will understand the implications. Your momentum is far to great to overcome.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2015
Two black holes in a decaying orbit must release immense amounts of enrgy

But, how much energy, Clever Hans? As usual, your specious arguments are high in hand waving and low in any technical content.
yet if this is in the form of gravity waves it is not manifest and does not produce any effect we can discern

The energy released per second as gravitational radiation is known as luminosity. Let's take a candidate binary black hole, such as J287 and approximate how much energy it releases per second. J287 is a binary black hole system with a whopping mass ~ 18B suns and a staggering 3.5B ly away. You can find more information about it here:
http://arxiv.org/...22v1.pdf
Now based off of the numbers from that paper,
http://www.tat.ph...sics.pdf
tells me that I can approximate the luminosity as 1.86*10^42 J/s. Indeed, that's a lot of energy (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2015
(continued)
But now, let's find out roughly how much of it is getting to earth, assuming spherical waves and perfect transmission. Remember, earth is 3.5B LIGHT YEARS away from this black hole, so the amount of energy that affects us is going to die out as an inverse square law. So, a quick, dirty, back-of-the-envelope calculation yields that by the time the energy reaches us, it will have an effect of approximately 0.0000000001J/s. To give you an idea of how tiny that is a flying mosquito has the kinetic energy of about 160 nano joules, which is 1600 times larger than this effect. This is a REALLY tiny effect, and tiny effects are difficult to measure. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2015
(continued)
Now, people who understand this stuff better than I do calculate that gravitational waves coming from known binary black holes should perturb the shape of the earth by no more than 10^-13 meters--less than the width of an atom (see http://www.tapir....e.html). This is an effect that, though measurable, is extremely difficult to measure nonetheless. The point is, we're still in the middle of trying to measure an effect that is monumentally difficult to measure. It isn't that we CAN'T detect the waves, but that we are still in the process of doing so.

In fact, we do have indirect evidence for gravitational waves in the form of dissipation of angular momentum. See, http://www.astro....setaylor

So, as usual, you are exasperatingly incorrect. Stop acting as if you are an authority on this stuff. You just aren't.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2015
Evidence equally shows that planetary orbit is caused by expansion, and gravity is not required.

And, of course, what Clever Hans critique of modern physics would be complete without a blatant plug of that thing he calls a theory, which is, in actuality, is a vague, hand-wavy hypothesis built up of overwhelmingly falsified hypotheses, such as tired light, and there being no such thing as escape velocity?
Einstein represented [gravity] as a "dimple" in the "space-time continuum", an almost wilder venture into la-la land

And how did he arrive at this conclusion, Clever Hans? Do you even know where it comes from? I'll give you a clue. It didn't come from hand waving. In fact, if we assume the equivalence principle, and the stress-energy tensor as the source of gravitational attraction, space-time curvature AUTOMATICALLY APPEARS. In other words, what you just implied is that at least one of those two well established physical laws ARE WRONG. Silly Clever Hans.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2015
@furbrain
Nice to see you again, furry. I was afraid your brain had melted after you grappled with the irrefutable logic of expansion theory.
It isn't that we CAN'T detect the waves, but that we are still in the process of doing so.
So, in spite of your interminable posts with copious mathematical formulae you actually agree with me after all....No G Waves have been detected!
In fact, if we assume the equivalence principle, and the stress-energy tensor as the source of gravitational attraction, space-time curvature AUTOMATICALLY APPEARS. In other words, what you just implied is that at least one of those two well established physical laws ARE WRONG.
You are making the incorrect basic assumption about the source of gravitational attraction. Why are you making this assumption? You really haven't a clue, have you? Your entire philosophy is based on flawed logic, baseless assumptions, and extravagant use of mathematical formulae as if they are REALITY! Try THINKING instead.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2015
The mathematical formulae are based on experiment though which to the best of my knowledge, is reality.
G Waves are surely going to be hard to detect, the small ones are really small, the large ones are really low, the sources are really far away, then there's trying to detect them from the bottom of Earths gravitational well, stuck to the side of the suns gravitational well.
It's hard, they're trying.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
The mathematical formulae are based on experiment though which to the best of my knowledge, is reality.
G Waves are surely going to be hard to detect, the small ones are really small, the large ones are really low, the sources are really far away, then there's trying to detect them from the bottom of Earths gravitational well, stuck to the side of the suns gravitational well.
It's hard, they're trying.

Hey, look, we have microscopes that can see an atom, we have equipment that can emit a single photon, etc., yet we cannot detect G Waves. Here we have a "force" that keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth, the Earth round the Sun, etc., etc., yet we cannot detect it, deflect it, shield against it, reproduce it, and so on. Its just a "property" of matter. In conclusion, it ain't a force at all. So what is it? See expansion theory for an explanation. And while you're at it, have a think about what matter actually is, what TIME actually is, and what the laws of physics actually are.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
See expansion theory for an explanation
@RegTROLL
this is a science site, not a pseudoscience site or a science fiction site

for starters, your expansion philosophy is not even into the hypothesis stage, mostly because it fails to predict or explain simple things like: tides, orbits, etc

Then there is the (per your own words) "mass dependent" nature of the expansion which would cause a proportional difference that could be easily measured as it predicts a growth/expansion that is faster the more mass is present...
and this is NOT observed!!

lastly, there is no scientific evidence, only a book by a pseudoscience crackpot (you)
if you can't explain it here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
why would anyone waste money on your pseudoscience book?
to hear you explain a pseudoscience philosophy that has NO scientific evidence?

perhaps you should try this link: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
learn the real physics
like what furlong shares
casualjoe
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2015
Reg, objects don't loose energy through gravity waves, at least not in the form you are talking about. it's still gravity reg, a force, reg.

At least not in the form you are talking about.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
Reg, objects don't loose energy through gravity waves, at least not in the form you are talking about. it's still gravity reg, a force, reg.

At least not in the form you are talking about.

Here's what furbrain has to say:-
The energy released per second as gravitational radiation is known as luminosity.

Now, who are you actually arguing with, me or furbrain?
Admittedly, furbrain thinks that "luminosity" is a form of Gravitational waves, even though the very definition of the word means "light", and he seems to think that Gravitational radiation is the same as light raditation, but he supports the idea that energy is released as G waves. Apparently, you don't.
Anyway, I still maintain that gravity is not a force.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015
There is a difference between gravitational radiation and the gravitational waves within the gravitational radiation. Gravitational waves don't change the total energy radiated.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2015
Nice to see you again, furry. I was afraid your brain had melted after you grappled with the irrefutable logic of expansion theory.

So, your memory is that short, huh Clever, Hans? Let me remind you of where we left off:
In the last exchange we had, you posted on Feb 3rd. I responded THAT SAME DAY. Now, I know objective evidence is abhorrent to you, but here is the article in which that exchange occurred.
http://phys.org/n...oms.html
As you can see, I was in the middle of kicking the snot out of your silly mathematical "proof" with mathematical arguments. And what was your response? A MONTH OF SILENCE.

Saying something that is obviously easily refuted by 1 second internet search is trolling, Reg. Now, for your sake, I hope that you actually are a willing troll rather than a person who is that stupid.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
A visual interpretation of the event can be found here;
https://www.googl...YQ_AUoAQ

And once again, Lapoint has "discovered" with his cereal bowls nothing more than the magnetic field of a Bennett Pinch. Remember that all that is intrinsic to charged matter are electric fields which the magnetic field is resultant from, there is no magic involved.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2015
Just read through your posts thefurlong, awesome. So a gravitational wave is but a ripple within a minuscule amount gravitational luminosity that reaches Earth, making the effect EVEN smaller and EVEN harder to detect.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
@furbrain
Wow, you got a good memory! I see that I did in fact fail to respond, so owe you an apology. You must have thought I had put you on my "ignore list" with Cap'n Grumpy!
Now, you said:-

1) Every trajectory we see directly supports the idea that gravity is an inverse squared force, and only few trajectories agree with your hypothesis that matter expands. The only such trajectory is that of objects that have not reached escape velocity.
to which I reply that there ain't no escape velocity, only transfer to the sphere of influence of another body.
You said:-
2) Orbits could not happen under expansion, even if space somehow contracted between two massive bodies
Of course orbits happen under expansion! This is proved with irrefutable logic in detail in expansion theory, e.g. in "The Situation of Gravity" and other places. Space contraction is another of your red herrings which you throw in from time to time to obfuscate the argument.
You said:- (TBC)
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
You said:-
3) You are wrong because you can't explain why space along the center line between two spheres would contract, but why it wouldn't contract in an empty cavity existing between a spherical shell and nested solid sphere.
The space described neither expands nor contracts. The BODIES under consideration expand. You are being deliberately obtuse, and this is yet another of your red herrings..
You said:-
4) You are wrong because you cannot provide a general description for how an arbitrary configuration of matter would expand. All you can do is enumerate a finite list of ad-hoc examples.
Matter expands proportionally to the mass involved. That is the general description, it has always been the general description, what are you blathering about?

Now, I have no wish to resurrect a dead thread, can we just stick to this thread, or do I continually have to keep going back to your previous illogical crap to refute it, and to deny saying the things you invent?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2015
You must have thought I had put you on my "ignore list" with Cap'n Grumpy!
@regTROLL
actually, it is far more likely you got temp banned for being a pseudoscience troll
Matter expands proportionally to the mass involved
and again, i will point out that this is the death knell for your expansion stupidity

IF it expands based upon mass, then two similar sized objects of widely different mass would show a very large disproportionate expansion rate within a short measurable period of time that would allow us to see results in the sky with regard to your philosophy

this distortion is NOT OBSERVED

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

point two: you published a book, not a scientific study

no peer review
NOT reputable
no science in it based upon the reviews from physicists who read it & posted here
failed predictions
NO math
NO SCIENCE

IOW - epic fail for reg

quit TROLLING with your SPAM PSEUDOSCIENCE
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2015
Wow, you got a good memory!

Haha, silly Reg. It has nothing to do with memory. Anyone can look at the recent activity in your profile. What is the the internet, and how does it work?
You must have thought I had put you on my "ignore list" with Cap'n Grumpy!

As usual, you demonstrate how poor your hypothesis forming skills are.
Now, of course, like the easily distracted simpleton you are, you completely ignored my actual argument in response to your mathematical "proof", and went on to my closing statements, instead. And that's fine. We all know how poor you are at math, and as I have demonstrated, arguing mathematics with you is like arguing Mandarin grammar with an uneducated bigot. Sure, he thinks he's speaking actual Mandarin and that he's being really clever, but he's really just smugly making meaningless "Ching Chong" noises. Also, he's surprised oranges can talk.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
Oh dear, furry, once again you have turned to puerile insults when your"logic" has been defeated. Time you grew up, boy!
I have responded to every one of your 4 points with logic and a demonstrably true answer.
In reply, you descend to the above crap. Why don't you leave that stuff to Cap'n Grumpy, I have to read your chuntering in the hope of seeing one of your occasional gems amongst the pile of turds you churn out - although I'm losing hope at the moment.....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
I have responded to every one of your 4 points with logic and a demonstrably true answer.

Haha, try harder Reg. Also, learn to read English. Those 4 points I made were not in response to your "mathematical" proof. Here, let me briefly sum up your and my arguments:

Here is what you wrote:
when the bullet reaches the point where the man was, he will have moved on more than you think due to relatavistic effects and time dilation. It will then take a small but finite amount of time for the bullet to cover that distance, when he again will have moved on. This happens an infinite amount of times, each time the distance becoming much smaller and the time for the bullet to cover it, but it goes on infinitely, hence the bullet never reaches the man.


Let me emphasize in particular, that YOU wrote that this happens an infinite amount of times, NOT ME.

(To be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
(continued)
In response, I argued that
You are incorrect, because what you are arguing is a form of Zeno's paradox, something that has been settled for millenia. All I had to do to show that your proof is not correct, is find a counter example to it. In this case, I took the distance, and chopped it up into a succession of halves, and then computed how long it would take the bullet to reach the man.

This resulted in the infinite sum, (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +...), which I showed converges to 2. You argued, in response that it will never get there because there was an infinite number of additions required, to which I responded,
YOU just said there were an infinite number of these instances. Thus,...[w]e are considering the case where ALL summands are added up. Remember, YOU implied there were an infinite number of these instances. So, in short, because the sum asymptotically approaches 2, and because we have an infinite number of terms, we WILL get to 2.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
(continued)
Your response to this? Ignore that argument, and instead pay attention to the last 3 words of a comment I made to Whydening Gyre, "if they exist." Then, you continued to (for some reason that elludes me) ask me to provide an examples of infinity in nature, a claim I had not made.

Now, I'd like to think you have some semblance of continuity in that lazy brain of yours, but perhaps you could actually...I don't know acknowledge that either your mathematical proof is wrong, or at least respond to it by offering another abortion of reason you think counts for mathematical arguments.

But who am I kidding? You're going to chime in and say something completely vacuous, completely missing the point I made. As Captain Stumpy aptly said a while ago, this is pigeon chess, and you're the pigeon.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
LOL...I remember when the EU contacted Dave and proposed that he come on board with them. He politely declined, citing that after he read the theory, it was totally wrong and every experiment he had done in a plasma chamber was at complete odds with it.


LOL is right! You can re-write history all you want, but Lapointe is far from polite and your little story is far from accurate. And Birkeland and Tesla both were clear in their understanding that electric fields/currents are required for the creation magnetic fields. They didn't require magic as Lapointe does.

And how does Lapointe magnetize his cereal bowls? I'll leave you to answer that, I think we know the answer to that question though. Those bowls aren't quite "intrinsically" magnetic, are they?
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
This resulted in the infinite sum, (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +...), which I showed converges to 2. You argued, in response that it will never get there because there was an infinite number of additions required, to which I responded,
YOU just said there were an infinite number of these instances. Thus,...[w]e are considering the case where ALL summands are added up. Remember, YOU implied there were an infinite number of these instances. So, in short, because the sum asymptotically approaches 2, and because we have an infinite number of terms, we WILL get to 2.

(to be continued)

Only after an infinite number of terms, i.e. never......
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
Only after an infinite number of terms, i.e. never......

*SLOW CLAP*
That was perfect. One could not find a lazier, glibber, more insipid response on the Internets, than that which you, sir, have just provided. I mean, I have to admire it for its sheer, brazen stupidity. It has all the hallmarks of a Clever Hans classic: complete disregard for points made in the quoted content it is responding to, obvious demonstration that you were too lazy to read the rest of the comments and/or understand them, and brevity and inconsequentiality like a belch emitted from a field mouse. Bravo!
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
Only after an infinite number of terms, i.e. never......

*SLOW CLAP*
That was perfect. One could not find a lazier, glibber, more insipid response on the Internets, than that which you, sir, have just provided. I mean, I have to admire it for its sheer, brazen stupidity. It has all the hallmarks of a Clever Hans classic: complete disregard for points made in the quoted content it is responding to, obvious demonstration that you were too lazy to read the rest of the comments and/or understand them, and brevity and inconsequentiality like a belch emitted from a field mouse. Bravo!

Thank you, thank you, that was the kindest thing you've ever said about me. Obviously, as the point I made was correct, it must have been meant as a compliment. You really seem to be trying to take defeat gracefully now, but I suppose when all your drivel has been refuted there is nowhere else for you to go...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015
You really seem to be trying to take defeat gracefully now, but I suppose when all your drivel has been refuted there is nowhere else for you to go...

You remind me of a certain black knight.
https://www.youtu...Ew7nD9C4
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2015
You remind me of a certain black knight.
https://www.youtu...Ew7nD9C4
@thefurlong
actually, Reg logic is more like this video: https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g
ROTFLMFAO

Obviously, as the point I made was correct
@regtarded
only within the narrow and delusional confines of your pseudoscience book
and your faith in your delusions

the only thing you've actually proven here on PO is:
-you need to go back to school and learn physics
-you have a fictitious book being sold
-you have NO scientific data supporting your claims
-you haven't been able to validate your own philosophy with math or evidence
-you can't even describe your own philosophy here on PO
-you don't know how to link graphics that you claim "explain everything"
-you push PSEUDOSCIENCE and TROLL/SPAM

your Dunning-Kruger is showing
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2015
@thefurlong
actually, Reg logic is more like this video: https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g
ROTFLMFAO

Hahaha.

The thing is, he doesn't argue using such blatant nonsequiturs. Rather, he takes the approach of making glib arguments that only follow if you are naive. Case in point, in this thread, his article about GW being easily detectable because binary black holes "produce a lot of energy," while neglecting the truly vast distances between us and the black holes, and the difficulty of isolating specific energy fluxes at the scale of 10^-10 joules per second per meter cubed.

This is actually similar to what creationists do when they try to discredit evolution with thermodynamic and probabilistic arguments. They make plausible sounding arguments if you don't know the technical details. And that's dangerous.

I follow a simple principle: If you ever want to find out how wrong you are, crunch some numbers. Beliefs can lie. Numbers cannot.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2015

I follow a simple principle: If you ever want to find out how wrong you are, crunch some numbers. Beliefs can lie. Numbers cannot.

And the numbers you are crunching for GWs? All assumptions and based on flawed logic. Nubers, formulae and statistics can be made to prove anything you want, it is only direct observation that proves reality. There is no direct evidence for GWs, and the theory that there is a gravitational force is no more "proven" than expansion theory. But you, like Cap'n Grumpy and his ilk, condemn without ever having examined the logic. Poor show, furry. Can you advance ONE logical refutation of expansion theory? And I don't mean stupid examples like Grumpy's failure to see that, if two planets expand proportionately, you (also expanding proportionatley) you would not see any difference. Similarly, your sphere-within-spere rubbish.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
Can you advance ONE logical refutation of expansion theory?

Haha. Well, yes. Several. But like a true believer, you rationalize it all away, because you aren't interested in facts. So, really, it's just pointless.

For example, the existence of escape velocity. When I point out that there are several observed objects that have trajectories that align perfectly with gravity being an inverse square law, instead of accepting this as some pretty hard evidence against everything returning under gravity, you say,

"They just have moved into the gravitational influence of something else."

And you can say that because you don't have numbers and concrete rules to back up your claims. Without concrete numbers and rules, you can say anything you want, and find ways to make your theory fit the data. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
(continued)
In fact, crackpots, (you in particular), always accuse physicists of doing this, but what you don't understand is that, when you rely on numbers and equations, it is MUCH harder to do this.

Crackpots like you wouldn't last a day attempting to construct a physical theory that makes concrete numerical predictions that precisely align with observed data. (Hell, I bet you wouldn't even know where to start if I challenged you to curve-fit a catmull-rom spline to a series of points.)

Equations and numbers are pesky things. They don't do what you want them to. Recently, I attempted to derive a matter-wave equation of my own using what I thought were acceptable hypotheses. Once I solved the resulting equations, and crunched the numbers, however, it was clear I was barking up the wrong tree.

Had I been you, I wouldn't have even gotten to the equation-solving part. I would have, instead, constructed a bunch of ad-hoc cases, and confirmed to myself that they worked.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
it is only direct observation that proves reality
@RegTARDED
well, in that case, then this video not only says a great deal, it also completely debunks your philosophy with "observation" and empirical evidence
https://www.youtu...-CfukEgs
gravitational force is no more "proven" than expansion theory
except that we can (again) make predictions that you cannot by using GR/SR
whereas you have NO ability to make any predictions

AND the logical conclusions of your "mass dependent" expansion also calls for an observed anomaly that should be easily visible and measurable
a proportional anomaly that is NOT observed

that is why you are considered a crackpot PSEUDOSCIENCE poster
you don't have a valid theory, or even a hypothesis... only a philosophy and lack of any evidence

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
if two planets expand proportionately, you (also expanding proportionatley) you would not see any difference
@regTARDED TROLL
except that this is a logical fallacy
you claimed (Jan 28, 2014 - http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) that
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface
Now, assuming two objects of the EXACT same size but different MASS were in orbit
lets say one is made of LEAD, and one is made of SILICONE

considering that the two objects are the same size, but the LEAD object is far more massive (and considering your expansion is mass dependent)
then an easily observed anomaly would be the proportional expansion (growth) making the LEAD object considerably larger than the SILICONE one
and as the objects grew, one would far outpace the other (rapidly)

that is SIMPLE LOGIC that refutes your philosophy
it's not about a person SEEING something different
it is about a MEASUREMENT that can be taken

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
you would not see any difference
@regTARDED TROLL
so again, the logical fallacy is yours
you cannot have mass dependent expansion and then make a claim that everything expands at the same rate

likewise, we KNOW that gravity is mass dependent
we have measured this and found GR/SR to be accurate to a high degree

the only way your "mass dependent" expansion would work given the pseudoscience claims that you've made to date is if it also had GRAVITY assisting it, which then directly refutes your own claims re: expansion

again, this is all demonstrated over and over in your historical posts, from Q-Star to theFurlong

it is also demonstrated in your lack of predictability
this is because you have no math that will support your conjectures
in fact, you have NO SCIENCE at all
even though you tend to think your interpretations of other observations is relevant

your personal conjecture is NO replacement for science

so quit posting your PSEUDOSCIENCE RELIGION here
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
@furbrain
Liked your Black Knight simile, didn't know you were a Monty Python fan, there maybe hope for you yet.
However, amazed that Grumpy had watched The Holy Grail, I thought it was far too intellectual for him.
Anyway, back to your last post, I have never denied that gravity is an inverse square law, I have always accepted that it is a good MODEL of reality. Especially as the same rules apply to expansion theory, which of course also appears to obey an inverse square law. Think about it, effects of both are almost exactly the same.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
I have never denied that gravity is an inverse square law, I have always accepted that it is a good MODEL of reality.

If you accept this, then you also accept that hyperbolic and parabolic trajectories are a good model of reality.
the same rules apply to expansion theory

They don't because one has hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories, and one does not. Also one is consistent with mass/energy equivalence, and one is not. But again, it doesn't make a difference if I say any of these things to you because you have no numbers, nor equations, to show how much the theories align or don't align.
the same rules apply to expansion theory, which...also appears to obey an inverse square law.

How do you know this if you haven't derived the equations to prove it? Also, if it does appear to obey an inverse square law, then it has hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories.
Think about it, effects of both are almost exactly the same.

Without equations, how do you know?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
@furbrain
So it has hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories, so what? I never said it didn't have. What I said was, there is no escape velocity, if you accept the laws of gravity the range of the force is infinite, so an object can never "escape", merely exchange the sphere of influence from one mass to another. That is totally different from what you unfairly ascribe to me as saying. C'mon, furry, stick to the rules! Don't accuse me of saying stuff you invent in an attempt to justify your spurious logic.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
So it has hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories, so what? I never said it didn't have. What I said was, there is no escape velocity,

Hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories and trajectories in which an object has achieved escape velocity ARE THE SAME THINGS. You just contradicted yourself.
if you accept the laws of gravity the range of the force is infinite, so an object can never "escape", merely exchange the sphere of influence from one mass to another.

Ugh. For the umpteenth time, SAYING SOMETHING HAS ACHIEVED ESCAPE VELOCITY DOES NOT MEAN THE OBJECT HAS ESCAPED THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. It means that object has achieved a speed that enables it to enter into a trajectory in which it never returns. Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Why do I have to keep telling you this? Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
@furbrain
Hyperbolic/parabolic trajectories and trajectories in which an object has achieved escape velocity ARE THE SAME THINGS. You just contradicted yourself.

YOU say they are the same things. I say they are NOT!
Ugh. For the umpteenth time, SAYING SOMETHING HAS ACHIEVED ESCAPE VELOCITY DOES NOT MEAN THE OBJECT HAS ESCAPED THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. It means that object has achieved a speed that enables it to enter into a trajectory in which it never returns. Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

YOU say it NEVER returns. I say it does. Don't you listen?
(Sorry, that should be "Can't you read?")
It's only in your mathemetical formula that the travelling object asymptotically approaches zero velocity, I believe that, in reality, this is not true, it eventually does reach zero and then starts to return.
Did you understand what I just wrote? Do I have to repeat it again? Are you a pseudonym/alternate ego of Cap'n Grumpy, or just thick?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2015
YOU say they are the same things. I say they are NOT!

But you are wrong. Here, educate yourself: http://www.braeun...perbolic

Here's a quote in case you're too lazy to read it:
"A space vehicle that has exceeded the escape velocity of a planet will travel a hyperbolic path relative to the planet."
It's only in your mathemetical formula that the travelling object asymptotically approaches zero velocity, I believe that, in reality, this is not true, it eventually does reach zero and then starts to return.

But, zero velocity is not the only final speed, so you're wrong about that too. We call this speed hyperbolic excess velocity. It is the speed that an object in a hyperbolic trajectory converges to. For example, there are hyperbolic trajectories where the final speed is 2000km/hr AWAY FROM THE ATTRACTING OBJECT. The link I provided talks about it. All you need to do is scroll down a little bit.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2015
@furbrain
But you are wrong. Here, educate yourself: http://www.braeun...perbolic

No, I am right. That's what I did say.
Here's a quote in case you're too lazy to read it:
"A space vehicle that has exceeded the escape velocity of a planet will travel a hyperbolic path relative to the planet."

I never said it didn't. I said that, despite it travelling a hyperbolic path relative to the planet, it would still eventually return provided that the planet was the only oject in the entire universe, otherwise it will merely exchange one sphere of influence for another.
(tbc)
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2015
@furbrain
zero velocity is not the only final speed, so you're wrong about that too. We call this speed hyperbolic excess velocity. It is the speed that an object in a hyperbolic trajectory converges to. For example, there are hyperbolic trajectories where the final speed is 2000km/hr AWAY FROM THE ATTRACTING OBJECT.

I never said zero was the only final speed - stop making things up. What I said was that converging asymptotically to any final speed (including zero) was a mathemetical illusion. The mathematical formula is only a MODEL of reality, and in practice eventually fails.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2015
I said that, despite it travelling a hyperbolic path relative to the planet, it would still eventually return provided that the planet was the only oject in the entire universe, otherwise it will merely exchange one sphere of influence for another.

You have absolutely no objective evidence for this.
I never said zero was the only final speed....I said...that converging asymptotically to any final speed (including zero) was a mathemetical illusion.

You also have absolutely no evidence for this, either. And your hand-wavey argument that somehow the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will eventually "kick in" (whatever that means) doesn't work for reasons you'll probably just ignore anyway. And that's because you have no definitive calculations to back up your claims, which allows you to keep moving the goal posts until you are satisfied your "theory" is safe from criticism.

Without the math, your theory is whatever it needs to be to suit your own bias.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2015
@furbrain
You have absolutely no objective evidence for this.
I never said zero was the only final speed....I said...that converging asymptotically to any final speed (including zero) was a mathemetical illusion.

You also have absolutely no evidence for this, either..... you have no definitive calculations to back up your claims..
Without the math, your theory is whatever it needs to be to suit your own bias.

The WHOLE POINT is that maths only MODELS reality, and is not perfect! You seem to be quite incapable of understanding what I have said on numerous equations. Try and get it thru' your thick skull, will you! Maths is ONLY A MODEL based on assumptions made without absolute evidence. OK, nobody disputes that maths doesn't work LOCALLY, just like Newton's Laws of gravity, but they are only MODELS which fail when applied universally, and the force of gravity is a pure invention which does not actually exist.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2015
The WHOLE POINT is that maths only MODELS reality, and is not perfect!

Well, of course, it isn't perfect, but it's a fallacy to assume that that makes it invalid, especially if all you have to supplant it is a hypothesis "supported" only by ad-hoc, hand-wavey, arguments. And, it's absurd for you to think that anybody should accept such a "theory" as a viable alternative without asking for the math.

That being said, there are other reasons why objects don't always return under gravity, which don't depend on limits or calculus. Indeed, I need only 4 overwhelmingly established laws to show you this. They are conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and that gravitational potential energy, at least to very good approximation, is k/r, where k is constant, and r is the distance to the gravitating object, and that gravity is an inverse square law to good approximation. Care to hear it, or will you consider that invalid too?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
... it would still eventually return provided that the planet was the only oject in the entire universe
@RegtardedTROLL
this doesn't even make logical sense considering the two "ojects" [sic] are the only two "ojects" [sic] in the universe

IF the object achieves escape velocity and
IF the object and the planet are the only things in the universe and
IF the object does appear to obey an inverse square law and
IF there is little to no friction in space and
IF the object is moving away/hyperbole
THEN there is no way that the object would return
AS it has exceeded the escape velocity
it is NOT changing speeds
and there is less and less attraction the further away it gets from the planet (inverse square law)

that is BASIC physics that theFurlong not only showed you mathematically, but you should have learned in HIGH SCHOOL

guess you really DON'T have an education!

try this: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
@furbrain
They are conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and that gravitational potential energy, at least to very good approximation, is k/r, where k is constant, and r is the distance to the gravitating object, and that gravity is an inverse square law to good approximation. Care to hear it, or will you consider that invalid too?

OK, let's hear it, bearing in mind that they will be " at least to very good approximation" or "to good approximation", to quote your words... Can't you see that you have negated your whole argument? MODELS, my boy, MODELS!
I see that Cap'n Grumpy is interspersing our exchange with his crap, which I ignore as it is always the same song. He is a liar, making repeated statements such as my theory does not explain orbits, which it does in detail, and other similar remarks which, not having read the book himself, he bases on a review by Q-Star who admits making the review NOT HAVING READ THE BOOK, then trying to justify himself afterwards.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
OK, let's hear it, bearing in mind that they will be " at least to very good approximation" or "to good approximation", to quote your words...

This goes without saying. It's a non-argument.
Can't you see that you have negated your whole argument? MODELS, my boy, MODELS!

And I already told you that it is a fallacy to say that just because something is an approximation, that makes it invalid. I can make an approximate theory about you. I can hypothesize you are a human with one heart and one liver. Obviously, this is an approximation, but, unless you are an extraterrestrial or AI, I would say that my MODEL of you is pretty accurate. The fine details do not invalidate the coarse ones.

What you said is like me telling you that the number PI is in between 3 and 4, because it is approximately equal to 3.1415926, and you responding, "But that's only an approximation, so your proof is invalid."

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
(continued)
Now, I grant that you, being demonstrably poor at calculus and physical intuition, would be distrustful of an argument involving asymptotes. If my argument only involves high school algebra, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitational potential energy being k/r, where r is the distance between the two gravitating objects, and k/r^2 being the magnitude of the attractive force between them, will you concede that escape velocity does exist, or at least offer a better rebuttal than the weak sauce "It's only a model." ? Or, will I, as I suspect, be wasting my time? I warn you. If you can't put in the effort to rebut my argument, and instead, offer a lazy, dismissive argument without math amounting to moving the goal posts, I will consider it a concession, end the argument, put you on my ignore list, and go back to mocking you whenever I see that you've posted something. This is your last chance.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
@furbrain
go back to mocking you whenever I see that you've posted something
What's this "go back"? Did you ever stop? Well, as this is my "last chance" and I enjoy drinking in the last chance saloon, OK, I will either refute your argument logically or accept it. I would be sad to see the end of our jousting (as per your reference to Monty Python...).
Incidentally, I note there is no "comment" from the Cap'n between our last posts, have I misjudged the poor chap? Perhaps he isn't the ignorant sour pig he appears to be...
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
and the force of gravity is a pure invention which does not actually exist
Really ?

So how is it when the forces as calculated using formula for Gravity here:-
https://en.wikipe.../Gravity

*Does* actually WORK as used to; launch rockets, place satellites in high or low orbits and heck even used to accelerate craft WAY beyond Earth's orbit by way of 'slingshot effect' :-)

Reg Mundy, you appear to take a particularly vociferous & immensely arrogant position as if you know so VERY much better, which means you MUST have first researched the precise failings logistically & numerically re existing physics & maths to launch as per above para !

Please point precisely dichotomy as to how launches CAN use these formula ?

So, THEN what is YOUR formula as to how rockets can be launched, satellites placed in orbits & the 'slingshot effect' to accelerate Eg voyager & Pioneer among others ?

Formula please Reg Mundy with physical units ?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
Formula please Reg Mundy with physical units ?

Unfortunately, Mike, you're wasting your time. Reg doesn't believe in formulas. He believes in hand waving.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2015
OK, I will either refute your argument logically or accept it.

That's not good enough. That can mean anything, given your track record. No, what I want from you is a precise argument. What I want from you is for you to show some respect to me for taking the time to prove something rigorously to you, by taking the time to understand what it is I have demonstrated, instead of responding with a lazy, vacuous, argument, like "It's just a model." I'll be able to tell if you haven't. For a guy who claims to have found a GUT of physics, and to have come from a "World Class University" this shouldn't be difficult.

No hand-waving. No one sentence responses. If you have a rebuttal, use mathematical arguments, and I don't mean vague arguments like "Binary black holes output a lot of energy, and so we should be able to easily detect their GW". I want concrete numbers to back up your rebuttal, if you have one. Does that sound fair?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2015
He is a liar
@regTARDED TROLL
show one lie
you have never ONCE explained your philosophy except to say buy your book
making repeated statements such as my theory does not explain orbits, which it does in detail
and you've never ONCE been able to show this here
NOT ONCE
and other similar remarks ...he bases on a review by Q-Star who admits making the review NOT HAVING READ THE BOOK, then trying to justify himself afterwards.
Q-Star HAS read the book
you just don't like his review of it
He also gave a detailed review to both YOU and I in a thread 6 months or so ago, which you are STILL crying about... and where your blatant LIES about his not reading the book come in

I offered you a solution
you REFUSED to accept it
WHY?
because you know full well that a review of your book pulling it apart with scientific evidence would KILL your book and likely cause you to give refunds for FALSE ADVERTISING as well as not marking it FICTION
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2015
now lets talk about this
I see that Cap'n Grumpy is interspersing our exchange with his crap, which I ignore as it is always the same song. He is a liar
reggietard
i can PROVE you are a liar as well as a fraud with ONE LINK: http://phys.org/n...ong.html
that single links proves ME correct and proves YOU to be a blatant LIAR

it also shows that the only person singing "the same song" is you, regtard!
you've never ONCE been able to justify yourself with evidence
you CLAIM it is in your book... well, why not link it?
are you too stupid to figure it out?
i can offer you lessons.. or links to learn how to work a PC/laptop

all you need to do is ask

so pretty much you've been trashed by Furlong and Q-Star using ACTUAL physics and science
you've been trashed by ME using logic
you can't prove anything
your book is a work of FICTION
your only purpose is to TROLL/SPAM with your book
you've NO EVIDENCE AT ALL

that makes YOU the liar
not anyone else
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
@furbrain
Hang on, furry, you said you would produce a proof, i.e. an argument which
.. only involves high school algebra, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitational potential energy being k/r, where r is the distance between the two gravitating objects, and k/r^2 being the magnitude of the attractive force between them, will you concede that escape velocity does exist, or at least offer a better rebuttal
and I said I would either rebut it logically or concede.
Suddenly, you have turned this round (as you do) into ME offering the proof and YOU doing the rebuttal! Either keep your word, or on yer bike, Bozo!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
@Mike_Mastoid
Oh dear, here's me cogitating on cosmic processes, whilst you join the Furbrain/Cap'n Grumpy gang and require me to muck about producing equations for piddling little rocket launches and the like.
So how is it when the forces as calculated using formula for Gravity here:-
*Does* actually WORK as used to; launch rockets, place satellites in high or low orbits and heck even used to accelerate craft WAY beyond Earth's orbit by way of 'slingshot effect' :-)

Didn't you read the preceding exchanges? I say that an object (achieving escape velocity in furlong's parlance) leaves the influence of Earth and enters the sphere of influence of another body (what you call the slingshot effect). The argument with furbrain is that "escape velocity" is a meaningless term as nothing can escape the gravity of an object (according to the laws of gravity, which I disagree with). Maybe you should join the furbrain/Cap'n Grumpy/Uncle Irate gang, you certainly seem thick enough..
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2015
Thanks Stevepidge. La Point - The Primer Fields. Interesting, perhaps a bit drawn out with multiple examples. I'll watch ep 3 later. @Massen, looking forward to your critique if/when you watch.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
Hang on, furry, you said you would produce a proof, i.e. an argument...and I said I would either rebut it logically or concede.

And I said that isn't good enough. I am getting the short end of the stick, because all you have to do to satisfy your end of the bargain is spout some hand-wavey, glib, bullsh*t and act as if you've just super-mega-ultra check-mated me. I won't have that.
Suddenly, you have turned this round (as you do) into ME offering the proof and YOU doing the rebuttal!

Haha, nope! Reading is fundamental. I am still proving. You just aren't allowed to offer a rebuttal that doesn't precisely address where the proof is wrong with equations and numbers, because I don't want to waste my time. What's the matter? I thought you were trained at a "World Class University" and presented theses in front of committees. Surely, I am not asking too much of you!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
and require me to muck about producing equations for piddling little rocket launches and the like
@reggieTROLL
but you've not been able to produce ANY calid scientific evidence for ANYTHING
and that. AGAIN, can be proven here as well as in THIS thread: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

it PROVES you are a FRAUD, LIAR and that you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE

and it is NOT just about your failure with orbits, tides or everything else... tell me something about THIS, reggie tard!
How can your precious "mass dependent" expansion cause the Slingshot effect which actually SPEEDS UP a spacecraft (a measured observed phenomenon) ????
OR
How can you explain gravitation LENSING with your expansion stupidity????

that is one heck of a LIST that you cannot explain AT ALL
LENSING
SLINGSHOT effect for spacecraft
TIDES
ORBITS
SIZE (and the lack of proportional difference observed for similar size different mass objects)

EPIC FAIL
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
.. as nothing can escape the gravity of an object (according to the laws of gravity, which I disagree with).
LOL !

Where do 'laws of gravity' claim "nothing can escape the gravity of an object" ?

Clearly anyone able to jump can albeit for a few mS :-)

All u have to do is increase the force & thus velocity, it's simple maths of extrapolation !

U appear ignorant of means to challenge any terms in the existing gravitational equation
to point out which part might be 'wrong'

AND

U haven't explained or offered any critique as to why existing formula are SUCCESSFUL ?
Essential !
.
.
bluehigh asked
@Massen, looking forward to your critique if/when you watch
:-)

Have been dabbling with dialectic since I first 'got on the net' since 1978 re WARCC & unfortunately watching videos with quirky implied language definitions is immensely inefficient & reluctant to go down that path, most appear nonsense & nil evidence !

6 sentence precis' pls ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2015
thefurlong observed
.. I thought you were trained at a "World Class University" and presented theses in front of committees. Surely, I am not asking too much of you!
Ah great, just where did Reg Mundy go to a "World Class University" & when ?

It might explain a great deal, as there are a few cults who claim god's EM force is the driver of what we perceive as gravity - despite the fact local EM fields sum to zero unless perturbed anyway that differential is negligible !

Is it possible Reg Mundy is a closet advocate of Electric Universe religion & his vague & vain attempt is a means to shoe in beliefs ?

All should know Science doesn't advance as definitive UNLESS there at least basic math & added clarity by crafting a well thought out "Experimental Methodology" !
.
.

Reg Mundy, here is a simple question as U obviously REFUSE to offer ANY basic math !

What is your suggestion of a BASIC experiment to PROVE your claims, even the smallest part
as a foundation ?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
@furbrain
Look, furry, YOU offered proof of your claims in simple, high-school algebra, provided I took it seriously and either disproved it logically or admitted defeat and accepted it. Don't try to get out of it, you slippery little bugger, stick to your word!
Or are you wimping out, and admitting defeat......?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
@Mike_Mastoid
Are you saying that you can jump and escape from the Earth? The "laws" of gravity clearly state that gravity is a force dependent on the mass of the originating object which diminishes according to the inverse square law of distance from the object. There is no "limit" to the distance at which this is true.
U haven't explained/offered any critique as to why existing formula are SUCCESSFUL?
Don't you follow any of the articles showing that the existing formulae are NOT true?
Yes, I went to one of the top ten universities in the world.
No, I am not an advocate of the Electric Universe.
Finally, an excellent basic experiment to prove my theory is the Cavendish experiment, which illustrates my theory perfectly assuming you do not invent some fictitious force to explain the phenomena.
You wanna know more? How my theory explains orbits, tides, etc., etc., without inventing a force such as gravity? Well, unlike furbrain, Cap'n Grumpy, et al, read the f...ng book!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
Don't try to get out of it, you slippery little bugger, stick to your word!
Or are you wimping out, and admitting defeat......?

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this. It will accomplish nothing for me to spend an hour on a formal proof, only to have you take a big load of horse crap all over it with glib hand waving in 1 minute. Neither of us will have moved an inch, and I will have lost an hour of my life.

Now, you are wasting my time. Do you agree to use technical arguments with numbers and equations, or not? If you say no, or respond with another childish response like, "You are just trying to get out of it," I will consider it a concession that you simply don't have a strong enough argument to debate me. I have better things to do with my time, than to play chess with a pigeon.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
Are you saying that you can jump and escape from the Earth?
U r being dis-ingenuous., as I stated, only for few mS BUT, if U INCREASE force (rocket) u provide enough velocity to reach orbit. Obviously then the (angular) momentum of the orbiting craft matches the force of gravity per its inverse square, that's WHY its in orbit - doh !

Reg Mundy claimed
There is no "limit" to the distance at which this is true
Correct but, u would have to concede at sufficient distance other forces can balance & furthermore EXCEED that of gravity of closest body - otherwise craft wouldn't get OUT of orbit Eg Mars probe.

Can your formula incrementally apply to explain how Mars probes LEFT earth's influence "sufficiently" yet still be too far from ANY other body's comparative influence ?

Reg Mundy claimed
Don't you follow any of the articles showing that the existing formulae are NOT true?
But they work ! & U haven't shown in direct maths Y it shouldn't :-(
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2015
Last munted
Reg Mundy claimed
There is no "limit" to the distance at which this is true
Correct but, u would have to concede at sufficient distance other forces can balance & furthermore EXCEED that of gravity of closest body - otherwise craft wouldn't get OUT of orbit Eg Mars probe.

Can your formula incrementally apply to explain how Mars probes LEFT earth's influence "sufficiently" yet still be too far from ANY other body's comparative influence ?

Reg Mundy claimed
Don't you follow any of the articles showing that the existing formulae are NOT true?
But they work ! & U haven't shown in direct maths Y it shouldn't.

Take basic equations of motion in 2D eg throw object at eg 45 degs, these equations include a component which is acceleration due to gravity. For gravity to be WRONG then these equations would also be wrong - wouldn't they ?

Fact - they match observations !

So as they DO match observations then what is it that is WRONG about them ?

maths ?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2015
@Mike_Massen
Ah great, just where did Reg Mundy go to a "World Class University" & when ?

Well, he's never said. I suspect the answer to your question, however, is "A stable with hay" & "For all his adult life."

I also strongly suspect, from his arguments, that he is actually this horse IRL: http://en.wikiped...ver_Hans

There is no "limit" to the distance at which this is true

Correct but, u would have to concede at sufficient distance other forces can balance & furthermore EXCEED that of gravity of closest body

Escape velocity has nothing to do with other forces. It is just the velocity at which gravity becomes too weak to completely stop the object and turn it around. Sorry if I misunderstand what you are trying to say here.

Reg doesn't believe in it. He also, BTW, believes that fairies are more likely than the existence of gravity (no joke), so that should give you an idea of who you're dealing with.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
@furbrain
Don't try to get out of it, you slippery little bugger, stick to your word!
Or are you wimping out, and admitting defeat......?

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this. It will accomplish nothing for me to spend an hour on a formal proof, only to have you take a big load of horse crap all over it with glib hand waving in 1 minute. Neither of us will have moved an inch, and I will have lost an hour of my life.

Now, you are wasting my time. Do you agree to use technical arguments with numbers and equations, or not? If you say no, or respond with another childish response like, "You are just trying to get out of it," I will consider it a concession that you simply don't have a strong enough argument to debate me. I have better things to do with my time, than to play chess with a pigeon.

So, as I long suspected, your word means nothing. You offered to provide a proof using "high-school algebra", and I accepted your challenge. Stop weaseling!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
@Mike_Mastoid


Reg Mundy claimed
Don't you follow any of the articles showing that the existing formulae are NOT true?
But they work ! & U haven't shown in direct maths Y it shouldn't.

Take basic equations of motion in 2D eg throw object at eg 45 degs, these equations include a component which is acceleration due to gravity. For gravity to be WRONG then these equations would also be wrong - wouldn't they ?

Fact - they match observations !

So as they DO match observations then what is it that is WRONG about them ?

maths ?

No they don't match observations! They are close, as you would expect from a good model, but not exact.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2015
@Clever Hans
Learn to read English. I said,
If you can't put in the effort to rebut my argument, and instead, offer a lazy, dismissive argument without math amounting to moving the goal posts, I will consider it a concession, end the argument, put you on my ignore list, and go back to mocking you whenever I see that you've posted something.


Since your attention span sucks, allow me to direct it to the above words,
WITHOUT MATH


To which you IMMEDIATELY responded,

OK, I will either refute your argument logically or accept it.

Which is not equivalent to agreeing to offer a proof WITH MATH.

Again, trolling is saying something that can easily be refuted by quickly using the internet. You, Clever Hans, are trolling. Now, I will give you one more chance. Will you respond to my argument using a precise mathematical argument, or is this conversation over?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
@furbrain
You said above:-
If my argument only involves high school algebra, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitational potential energy being k/r, where r is the distance between the two gravitating objects, and k/r^2 being the magnitude of the attractive force between them, will you concede that escape velocity does exist, or at least offer a better rebuttal than the weak sauce "It's only a model." ? Or, will I, as I suspect, be wasting my time? I warn you. If you can't put in the effort to rebut my argument, and instead, offer a lazy, dismissive argument without math amounting to moving the goal posts, I will consider it a concession, end the argument, put you on my ignore list, and go back to mocking you whenever I see that you've posted something. This is your last chance.

Naturally, I accepted your challenge.
Now, you are trying to weasel out of it, like some low-life welsher whose word is worthless.
C'mon, furry, show some guts! Bring it on!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
Naturally, I accepted your challenge.
Now, you are trying to weasel out of it, like some low-life welsher whose word is worthless.
C'mon, furry, show some guts! Bring it on!

Stop waffling. Are you going to rebut using mathematical arguments? YES OR NO?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Stop waffling. Are you going to rebut using mathematical arguments? YES OR NO?
@thefurlong
you already know that he cannot because he doesn't know math well enough to support his theory

you also know he is not well versed in math because you've destroyed every argument he ever had with math and valid, verified physics

at this point, all he has is TROLLING and trying to find an acolyte to ascribe to his religious book he is trying to publish-

HE CAN'T give you rebuttal because he doesn't know anything above HS level basic math -

He can't explain orbits, tides, gravitational lensing, the slingshot using gravity nor a bazilion other things that we USE gravity for/observe now, and have mathematically proven and modeled accurate to observations (like GR/SR)

at this point, the best thing to do, especially considering his TROLLING you above, is downvote and REPORT the idiot for spreading pseudoscience and trolling/baiting
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2015
Naturally, I accepted your challenge.
Now, you are trying to weasel out of it, like some low-life welsher whose word is worthless.
C'mon, furry, show some guts! Bring it on!

Stop waffling. Are you going to rebut using mathematical arguments? YES OR NO?

Yes, I've already said YES several times! Bring it on! Put your argument which
only involves high school algebra, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitational potential energy being k/r, where r is the distance between the two gravitating objects, and k/r^2 being the magnitude of the attractive force between them
and I will answer it with logic and maths where appropriate.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2015
@Reg Mundy
Finally! Thank you.

All right, now give me a day or two. I have other things on my plate at the moment.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2015
you already know that he cannot because he doesn't know math well enough to support his theory

you also know he is not well versed in math because you've destroyed every argument he ever had with math and valid, verified physics

at this point, all he has is TROLLING and trying to find an acolyte to ascribe to his religious book he is trying to publish-

HE CAN'T give you rebuttal because he doesn't know anything above HS level basic math

Haha, yeah, though he did finally (sort of) acquiesce. I am sure that once he rebuts (as I am sure he will), he'll will use the same old tired strategy. Remember when I asked him for an equation from his theory, and all he could furnish me with was e=mc^2? Yeah, I am expecting that level of failure.

Notice his weasel words,
maths where appropriate.

which, more than likely, gives him an out if things get too hot for him to handle. But, whatever. I already told him what would happen if he did that.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2015
@furbrain
Mmmm, I see you are playing pattycake with Cap'n Grumpy, who is on my ignore list, but you quote his posts.
Let me remind you that Grumpy is a pathological liar and charlatan. He has never read my book, but persists in saying that it does not explain orbits (a lie, it does, in detail), it cannot explain why we perceive no difference in the size of planets (another lie, it does, in detail), tides (another lie, it does, in detail), and so on. The entire basis of his stance is a review of my book by that fraud and charlatan, Q-Star, an old antagonist who produced his review WITHOUT READING THE BOOK, as I forced him eventually to admit. Subsequently, he did read it, and tried to justify his earlier review. Despicable! And to Grumpy, he is a hero! That says it all about both of them. However, I'm surprised that you are taken in by his lickspittle toadying, his craven cosying-up to anyone who opposes my theories. His contribution seems to consist of persistently shouting TROLL!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2015
@Reg Mundy
You'll have to wait a few more days for the proof. Sorry about that. I'll have it by Friday.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2015
@furbrain
No hurry, I'm attending a conference until Thursday.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
All right, Reg Mundy, here's the deal. The proof is long and complicated (by your standards), and I haven't quite finished writing it up yet. However, as proof that I am not sitting on my hands or don't know what to do, here it is in all its unfinished, glory. It is too long to post here, so I thought I would put it on my Blog. Please note that this is not finished. This only serves to show you that I am still in the process of translating what I have done on paper into text. Here is the link: http://mostbadass...urn.html .

Now, blogger allows LaTEX, so I hope to replace my text equations with prettier equations, which should make them easier to understand. Until then, enjoy. And once more, IT IS NOT FINISHED, YET. I am going out of town this weekend, so will not have internet access. I will try to have this proof completely written up by the end of next week.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2015
@furbrain
OK, will wait.
Looking forward to it....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
@Clever Hans
Here it is:

http://mostbadass...urn.html

The ball is in your court. I expect you to put in the amount of effort in responding to this that I made in proving this to you--unless, of course, you concede that I am correct.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2015
@furbrain
OK, I've got it, and will look at it over the weekend.
Meanwhile, I note that there is no post from Cap'n Grumpy! Hopefully, I've pissed him off.....
Good riddance, he was a real asshole.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
Let me remind you that Grumpy is a pathological liar and charlatan
@REGTARD
prove it
He has never read my book, but persists in saying that it does not explain...blah blah blah
i never said i DID read your book, but i DO know someone who HAS read it
AND he has stated that it does NOT
I HAVE, however, stated that YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN those various claims
you keep saying "read my book" but you cannot explain it here in ANY detail with ANY scientific definitions or logic
IF you were the author, and IF you were actually knowledgeable enough to write a book which overturns gravity, then YOU SHOULD be able to pass on at least SOME knowledge in the thousand plus posts you've made since posting here...

but you haven't

thus, i am continually validated when i call you out as a LIAR and CHARLATAN
and a TROLL
and SPAMMER
and PSEUDOSCIENCE ACOLYTE

@theFurlong
feel free to quote the above so that reg can read it... maybe he can explain WHY
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
The entire basis of his stance is a review
@REGTARDED TROLL
nope
the BULK of my stance is based upon your inability to produce ANYTHING here in the comments sections, and your inability to demonstrate your knowledge of basic physics with people like thefurlong
His contribution seems to consist of persistently shouting
you forgot about pointing out that you have YET to be able to functionally describe your own philosophy... or show evidence...
considering you are the author of the book, you should be ashamed and embarrassed
Hopefully, I've pissed him off.....
Good riddance, he was a real asshole
so at least now i know i have been making my point and driving it home enough to make you angry
that means you are being proven to be the lying stupid charlatan pseudoscience poster that i have shown you to be
that is the only reason you would be so angry

and i don't get angry at trolls like you
people like you are the bread and butter for psyche studies

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
The ball is in your court.
@thefurlong
thanks for posting that... i will be reading it as well

i think i have given reggietard some acid reflux or something LMFAO
there is no post from Cap'n Grumpy! Hopefully, I've pissed him off.....
Good riddance, he was a real asshole.
he hates it when you (or anyone else) points out that he has still provided NOTHING regarding evidence/science
or even explained his stupid philosophy with anything like logic

all he has are claims, "read my fiction" or hate filled invectives

i love that he is angry, though
it means i was right about a lot of things... and it won me $200 from my psyche group! LOL

"those who promote pseudoscience hate to be shown as the con-men they are" TCS

a very relevant study about how people like reg think and see the world: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

THANKS
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
Argh! Strange...alien...force...taking...over...body. Must...not...channel...Captain...St--
i never said i DID read your book, but i DO know someone who HAS read it
AND he has stated that it does NOT
I HAVE, however, stated that YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN those various claims
you keep saying "read my book" but you cannot explain it here in ANY detail with ANY scientific definitions or logic
IF you were the author, and IF you were actually knowledgeable enough to write a book which overturns gravity, then YOU SHOULD be able to pass on at least SOME knowledge in the thousand plus posts you've made since posting here...

Sorry about that, Reg. I don't know what came over me.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
@furbrain
Oh dear, seems I have instigated more vituperation from the Cap'n. I really shouldn't provoke him, as I was taught as a child that it is wicked to mock the afflicted, but in his case I find it hard to resist, a bit like poking a drunken sailor with a stick to hear him swear.
However, I find it puzzling that you (or anybody else, for that matter!) should waste their time reading his crap, he never contributes anything worthwhile and merely insults everyone who disagrees with him. I put him on my ignore list long ago!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
@Clever Hans
I found a slight error in my proof. I will fix it soon. Sorry about that.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
@Clever Hans. I fixed it. Now, it's even simpler.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2015
@furbrain
Well, I've examined your http://mostbadass...urn.html , and at first glance I see you have made a basic mistake. The first statement you make is "I Am Great Scientist", which is patently and obviously incorrect. This is followed by a diatribe slagging me off as a crackpot, which seems to be based on my disagreeing with you. Is everyone who disagrees with you a crackpot? Don't answer that, you've already intimated your response.
Anyway, lets get down to specifics. You state that gravitational potential is given by -GmM/r which is a mathematical model useful in predicting outcomes. I say gravity does not exist as a force, and that you are looking at the situation thru the wrong end of the telescope. Two separate objects devoid of electrical and magnetic properties have NO attraction to each other, i.e. no gravitational potential. If they are not moving away from each other, they will collide as they expand.(tbc)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2015
@furbrain(contd)
Eventually, after infinite time, they will be of infinite size and will have collided anyway no matter what velocity they move away from each other initially.
Well, we'll let that pass, and move on to your statement that I said an object changing direction "jumps" from moving forward to moving backward without slowing to zero. I never said that, but, if we accept your basic premises for the time being, your approach is logical.
However, you must accept that all forms of matter and energy are interchangeable, approximately as modelled by E=mcc. Your statement that two equal objects flying apart have a net momentum of zero implies there is no difference from a system where the two objects are stationary with respect to each other. At a molecular level, this is the difference between hot and cold water, for example. I say there is a tradeoff between your momentum and the "temperature" of your system of two objects, and you cannot just consider momentum in isolation.tbc
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2015
@furbrain(contd)
So, there are several other factors to be considered in your example. We could let Ludwig Boltzmann loose on it, as well!
Next, consider what velocity actually is. I propose that every object is expanding, and essentially consists of myriad small particles which are two or more "tirds" orbiting each other and thereby producing a gyroscopic effect. The force required to accelerate an object is actually being used to align the tiny gyroscopes in the direction of travel, and this is your "momentum". Such alignment influences expansion to be more in the direction of travel, hence producing the illusion of velocity. If all gyroscopes are aligned, the object is travelling at the speed of light, and further force cannot align more gyroscopes so cannot increase velocity. Do you have a superior theory as to what momentum actually is? If so, lets hear it.
Back to your "proof".
You have made assumptions about what gravity is, what momentum is, what velocity is, etc.
(tbc).
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2015
@furbrain(contd).
In short, your mathematical model is correct (as far as I can see) but is no improvement on your previous essay. Your logic, though miss-applied, is fine, and I award you the title of "potential fearsome disputant when mature", which is better than "I AM GREAT SCIENTIST" which can only have been bestowed by you on yourself.
Finally, consider this. You invoke conservation of energy to conclude your argument. If two objects are flying apart at greater than your "escape velocity", energy has been used to propel them away from each other. After they have completely "escaped", velocity relative to each other becomes meaningless. Each object is effectively "stationary" in its own little universe. Where has the energy/momentum gone? Has the "temperature" of the entire universe been increased? I would like you to consider your mathematical equations in the light of the questions I have put to you here.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2015
The first statement you make is "I Am Great Scientist", which is patently and obviously incorrect.

LOL! Congratulations. You have just simultaneously satisfied both Poe's law and Dunning Kruger. Had you gone for the trifecta, and mentioned Joseph Goebbels, you'd have won the internet. So close, Reg. So close...

I'm not going to hold your hand. I am just going to drop my very first blog posting, here, and direct you to the first paragraph.

http://mostbadass...-of.html

I'll be back to address the rest of what you just wrote.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2015
You state that gravitational potential is given by -GmM/r which is a mathematical model useful in predicting outcomes. I say gravity does not exist as a force, and that you are looking at the situation thru the wrong end of the telescope.

From the very beginning, I told you I would be doing this. Here, let me remind you:
If my argument only involves high school algebra, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitational potential energy being k/r, where r is the distance between the two gravitating objects, and k/r^2 being the magnitude of the attractive force between them, will you concede that escape velocity does exist, or at least offer a better rebuttal than the weak sauce "It's only a model." ?

Read that again. I asked that if started from these premises and arrived at a correct proof, would you concede that escape velocity is real, or would you at least offer a rebuttal that is more than "It's only a model."

So far, you have not done either.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2015
Two separate objects devoid of electrical and magnetic properties have NO attraction to each other, i.e. no gravitational potential. If they are not moving away from each other, they will collide as they expand.

We aren't talking about expansion. We are talking about whether an inverse squared force actually conflicts with the notion that objects always return to each other.
Well, we'll let that pass, and move on to your statement that I said an object changing direction "jumps" from moving forward to moving backward without slowing to zero. I never said that, but, if we accept your basic premises for the time being, your approach is logical.

Well, if you understood my argument, you'd have seen that it covers the case where the direction doesn't jump. Just set Sq to 0 meters/s.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
(continued)
However, you must accept that all forms of matter and energy are interchangeable, approximately as modelled by E=mcc.

Actually, it's E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.

Also, equation dropping E=mc^2 to demonstrate sophisticated knowledge of physics is like phrase-dropping "To be, or not to be." to demonstrate sophisticated knowledge of European literature. It doesn't convince anyone.
I say there is a tradeoff between your momentum and the "temperature" of your system of two objects, and you cannot just consider momentum in isolation.tbc

This is word salad. If I had to guess, it would be that you are saying that momentum leaks out to the rest of the universe. While that's technically correct, it is irrelevant. The system starts out symmetrically. There is no reason to believe that it will, at some point, stop being symmetrical. You are really clutching at straws, here. So....are you going to get to math at some point?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
So, there are several other factors to be considered in your example. We could let Ludwig Boltzmann loose on it, as well!

By....an equation?
Next, consider what velocity actually is.

Umm...ok. So...I guess we're done with talking about Boltzmann, then? Still waiting for some kind of technical argument for why my argument is wrong...
I propose that every object is expanding...

Well, again, we aren't talking about your pet theory, but my proof for why an inverse squared force--even an approximate one--is at odds with the notion that things always return to each other. I am still waiting for some kind of technical argument.
Back to your "proof".

Oh, good, you stopped talking about irrelevant things. So...how about that technical argument?
You have made assumptions about what gravity is, what momentum is, what velocity is, etc.

Assumptions I told you I would make in our agreement, but go on.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
(continued)
You have made assumptions about what gravity is, what momentum is, what velocity is, etc....In short, your mathematical model is correct (as far as I can see) but is no improvement on your previous essay

So...you didn't actually have to write those three, meandering comments. You could have just responded with, "It's just a model." Padding your rebuttal to my argument with nonsequiturs does not change the content of your argument. I already told you that telling me, "It's just a model," won't do. It's a non-argument. You could say that about any physical theory, no matter how correct. If it can be applied to any physical theory, then it isn't an argument. Got anything else?
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2015
...After they have completely "escaped", velocity relative to each other becomes meaningless.

Um, no, it is still very meaningful. The two objects are still exchanging light signals over these distances.
Also, I don't think you are using "escaped" correctly.
Each object is effectively "stationary" in its own little universe.

Haha, nope! See above.
Where has the energy/momentum gone?

Energy goes to the gravitational potential. Momentum is carried by the two objects.
Has the "temperature" of the entire universe been increased?

Haha. What? What does this have to do with anything?
I would like you to consider your mathematical equations in the light of the questions I have put to you here.

And, I would like you to consider why all the math, and the physical evidence we've observed conflicts with your notion that all objects return to each other under gravity, and yet you continue to cleave to it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2015
@Clever Hans
In summation, your argument, sans your irrelevant excursions into expaaansion are as follows:
You: -GMm/r is just a model
Me: We agreed on the premises that -GMm/r would be assumed.

You: I didn't say that velocity jumps from positive to negative.
Me: My proof readily covers that case.

You: E=mc^2!
Me: Ummm...sometimes. What does this have to do with my arg--

You: You can't use conservation of momentum because of word salad that seems to suggest that momentum leaks by thermodynamics.
Me: The situation starts out symmetrical. There is no reason to assume that thermodynamics would break this symmetry. Also, I would like to mention that we also agreed that I could assume conservation of momentum.

You: Ludwig Boltzmann!
Me: ...what about him?

You: Your proof is correct, but it's just a model.
Me: *Facepalm*

Well, you expended some effort. I'll at least give you that, but ultimately, you offer nothing of value to defend your position.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2015
@furbrain
All your arguments are based on an example of a closed, isolated system, with no outside interaction. Read Lee Smolin regarding closed systems, and why they are irrelevant to reality.
I've been trying to tell you, all along, that your mathemetical models all fall down in the end as they are all based on conditions that are impossible to achieve in reality. Yet you cleave to your equations as if nothing I've said has penetrated your thick cranium. I do not dispute that, if every assumption you have made in your calculations is true, then you would be correct, there is nothing wrong with your logic in either this or your previous essay as far as I can tell. Congratulations, with your permission I will retain your proof as an example of why establishment science is blind.
Meanwhile, I would point out that I mentioned Boltzman as he is just one of many now-eminent scientists who were derided as crackpots during their lifetimes, yet were in the end proved correct.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2015
@furbrain
One more comment, regarding your "

The first statement you make is "I Am Great Scientist", which is patently and obviously incorrect.

LOL! Congratulations. You have just simultaneously satisfied both Poe's law and Dunning Kruger. Had you gone for the trifecta, and mentioned Joseph Goebbels, you'd have won the internet. So close, Reg. So close...

I'm not going to hold your hand. I am just going to drop my very first blog posting, here, and direct you to the first paragraph.

http://mostbadass...-of.html

I'll be back to address the rest of what you just wrote.

I cannot refute this directly, but offer
https://docs.goog...WmM/edit in return.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2015
All your arguments are based on an example of a closed, isolated system, with no outside interaction. Read Lee Smolin regarding closed systems, and why they are irrelevant to reality.

If you ever studied physics, you would understand that the principal that there are no closed, isolated systems is WOVEN into the field itself. Take thermodynamics, for instance, to which you desperately retreat. The results of much of thermo are derived from irreversible processes and ideal gases, which are things that can NEVER exist in nature. And yet, the laws derived from considering them largely apply. Now, you would ask how this can be.

I'll tell you how. Such things represent EXTREMES. They represent AT MINIMUM what would happen to the system if we did something to it. For example, irreversible processes help us understand how efficient a system can be.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
(continued)
The reason this is allowed is that, even though we can never get to, say, an irreversible process, we can, given enough resources, and enough time, set up appropriate conditions in the lab, which would make a process as close as we want to being one.

If you can establish a principle like, "the efficiency of a real engine is always less than the efficiency of one, which uses an irreversible process," then it doesn't matter if your process isn't reversible.

This is an example of why using the argument of "It's wrong because its a closed isolated system, which doesn't exist in nature," or, "It's just a model," is so incorrect. Physical theory is BUILT off of "just models" and "closed, isolated, systems," and yet it works exceedingly well for the reason I gave above.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
(continued)
Now, in this case, you must ask the question of whether the two objects not being in a closed, isolated, system ACTUALLY MATTERS.

The way to do this is to calculate how much the interactions of the system with the surrounding environment affect the outcome. In this case, there are only two such possible interactions:

1) electromagnetic radiation
2) interactions with particle/antiparticle pairs that spontaneously appear and evaporate.

If you wished to make it more realistic, you could also say that, every so often, it encounters an atom.

The problem is that it will take a long, long time before these interactions produce any significant change, if at all. When I say long, I mean, longer than it will take for the universe to experience heat death.

In the mean time, the velocities of the two objects will have quite comfortably approximated the final velocity, so as to be almost indistinguishable from being constant. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2015
(continued)
This means we can now comfortably apply the laws of physics for inertial reference frames. In this case, we would see that such an object would never actually change its trajectory ON AVERAGE. Hence, it will continue traveling in the direction it's going.

Now, I have given two precise arguments, using two different strategies, to show you that there is AT LEAST A COMPELLING reason for why objects should never return to each other, but it wouldn't be physics without observation. And, as I have told you, time, and again, we overwhelmingly see objects out in the middle of intergalactic and interstellar space, which have achieved something resembling escape velocity.

So, now, we have 3 compelling reasons to believe that conventional physics is true. In contrast with these arguments, you have offered NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone to believe that objects always return under gravity.

See the difference?
Me: 2 theoretical arguments, and physical data
You: NOTHING
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2015
Meanwhile, I would point out that I mentioned Boltzman as he is just one of many now-eminent scientists who were derided as crackpots during their lifetimes, yet were in the end proved correct.

Boltzmann also used MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS to make his predictions. If you had calculations to back up your claims, ESPECIALLY the one where you claim everything returns under gravity, maybe I wouldn't so readily dismiss you as a crackpot. Have you ever considered that?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2015
@furbrain
The reason this is allowed is that, even though we can never get to, say, an irreversible process, we can, given enough resources, and enough time, set up appropriate conditions in the lab, which would make a process as close as we want to being one.
As close as who wants? There are lies, damn lies, and your approximations.
2) interactions with particle/antiparticle pairs that spontaneously appear and evaporate.
This is a central theme in my theory, except that they are not particles/anti-particles but electrical potentials briefly "orbiting" each other, or in your parlance passing each other and interacting but possessing "escape velocity", as you insist on calling it.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2015
@furbrain
...After they have completely "escaped", velocity relative to each other becomes meaningless.

....The two objects are still exchanging light signals over these distances.
Also, I don't think you are using "escaped" correctly.

So they haven't "escaped" each other, then? Who is using "escaped" incorrectly? You cannot have your cake and eat it, your logic is obviously wrong!
What this all boils down to is you re-offering mathematical proofs based on disproven assumptions which, when considered logically, only prove that I am right and you are in the grip of a fixation that mathematical models are reality. They are only ever approximations, and the establishment view of how the universe works (to which you desperately cling) is transparently wrong for anyone who thinks about it. Gravity, Gravity Waves, Gravitons, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the nature of Time, all, all, perpetuated despite overwhelming evidence they are wrong!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
As close as who wants?

Experimentalists
This is a central theme in my theory,

We still aren't talking about your overall hypothesis. We're talking about whether you are justified in asserting that objects always return to each other under gravity. Before I would even begin to consider a radical theory, I at least want to know that its postulates are correct. So far, you have not convinced me that objects always return under gravity. Do that, first.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
So they haven't "escaped" each other, then?

If I achieve one thing in this thankless effort, it will be to get you to understand that "escape velocity" is just nomenclature. We could call it "super, happy, fun, velocity" and it would not change the phenomenon it refers to.

Escape velocity is the name we gave to the velocity an object needs to achieve in order to never return. It has nothing to do with escaping the gravitation field, nor escaping interactions with the gravitating object. Stop focusing on semantics. Please.

Do you understand this? Now, I am not going to say anything else to you besides ask you to answer this question, until you give me an answer.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2015
@furbrain
Now, I am not going to say anything else to you besides ask you to answer this question, until you give me an answer.

What's the question? You wander about generating mathematical questions, most of which are completely irrelevant, I am not sure which one you are talking about.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2015
@furbrain
Now, I am not going to say anything else to you besides ask you to answer this question, until you give me an answer.

What's the question? You wander about generating mathematical questions, most of which are completely irrelevant, I am not sure which one you are talking about.

Ugh. Do you understand that "escape velocity" is just a name, and has nothing to do with an object escaping the gravitational field of another object, nor with escaping its interactions with that other object?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2015
@Reg Mundy,
U aren't helping your case munting people's monikers, u appear to intend to offend, it doesn't help U !

I'm interested to know the best Provenance of your position & hypothesis as to why "..there is no gravity.." & I suggest doing this ONE step at a time & carefully to avoid argumentative divergence.

As I am sure you DO know but, U have gotten wound up temporarily, that convergence is desirable & possible & the higher ethic to arrive at a truth or at least a high confidence in the viability of a particular hypothesis on its way to becoming a (usable & reliable) theory.

Step 1
Is it because the maths (ie Newtons) implies that gravity has no distance limit, therefore it would seem that "eventually" anything that seems to leave an object eg A rocket launch from Earth, will have to come back - is that it in a nutshell & is it possible to start with a simple yes/no ?

Question 1
Have u been exposed to limit theorems as pre-requisite study for calculus ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.