Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] The Universe According To Pincho Paxton

Author
Message
TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 08:44 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 15:29
Wow, this thread has grown! I actually read the whole thing and am now up to date.

There can't be a black hole inside our planet or inside our sun because there's no way of explaining how it got there unless someone invented teleportation, in which case the black hole would just suck everything in.

Hypothetically speaking, if our sun did collapse and create a black hole, our orbit would remain unaffected because the black hole would have the same gravitational pull as the sun because it's a direct product of the sun.

This of course could never happen because our sun is way too small for something like that. This can be proven by the Schwarzschild Radius.

And if our sun is too small, so is our planet.

TheComet

KickBack
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2012
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 11:48
Quote: "Hypothetically speaking, if our sun did collapse and create a black hole, our orbit would remain unaffected because the black hole would have the same gravitational pull as the sun because it's a direct product of the sun."


Rational persons response
Possibly if the sun did just spontaneously change into a black hole but they are several stages involved one of which is the star massively increasing in size so much so that our planet would be shallower up, that's got to affect our orbit somehow.

Pincho's response
Noo it creates negative mass! The maths is backwards

Anybody see the difference?
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 12:09
Come on guys, do the htam!

http://thraxocorp.webs.com/ Visit my totally awesome website: Thraxocorp. It's my own company and I'm totes the CEO.
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 13:26 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 13:26



«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Derpy delivers: watch?v=g4Kgz4Us_RI

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 16:24 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 16:57
Right, so are we all happy now that a blackhole in the sun with the sun at the same mass would not affect or position?

And of course my theory requires negative mass for gravity to move into... and negative mass is what a black hole is made out of.





Quote: "At this rate of progress being made, I'd much rather be posting in rolfy's thread. "


Ok Fluffy Rabbit. I have figured out the grid. Your idea was close. I need to make the shape similar to what you said. But then I need to scale down my particle and put it inside each sphere. That is then the correct shape. I just need to get the distances right. Thanks for putting me on the right track.

TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 17:01
Quote: "Right, so are we all happy now that a blackhole in the sun with the sun at the same mass would not affect or position?"


That's true hypothetically, but there isn't a black hole in the sun and there isn't a black hole in the earth. End of story.

TheComet

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 17:15 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 17:18
Quote: "That's true hypothetically, but there isn't a black hole in the sun and there isn't a black hole in the earth. End of story."


Well there are models of the idea...
http://phys.org/news161857121.html

Like I said, my electrons are the same as black holes.

TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 17:35
Firstly, that link is just a hypothesis. Secondly, it claims that black holes could be in every particle, so it doesn't support your idea in any way that there could be a black hole in the centre of the earth. Thirdly, at the event horizon of a black hole the gravity is so intense that light cannot escape it anymore (proven by the Schwarzschild Radius, look at my last link), which means that the earth wouldn't be able to exist with that amount of force in the middle of it. Nowhere in the universe is there a case where something solid surrounds a black hole.

TheComet

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 17:45
There's a black hole in the centre of Uranus though.

Sorry, I couldn't resist, it was too easy.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 18:03 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 18:03
Quote: "Firstly, that link is just a hypothesis. Secondly, it claims that black holes could be in every particle, so it doesn't support your idea in any way that there could be a black hole in the centre of the earth. Thirdly, at the event horizon of a black hole the gravity is so intense that light cannot escape it anymore (proven by the Schwarzschild Radius, look at my last link), which means that the earth wouldn't be able to exist with that amount of force in the middle of it. Nowhere in the universe is there a case where something solid surrounds a black hole."


I wouldn't worry too much. I am here to sort out these problems with science that get stuck in your head. I will cure you.

FireIndy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jan 2007
Location: US of A
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 18:37
Quote: "I wouldn't worry too much. I am here to sort out these problems with science that get stuck in your head. I will cure you."






Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 20:00 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 20:01
Quote: "I wouldn't worry too much. I am here to sort out these problems with science that get stuck in your head. I will cure you."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oynJcSnLSI4#t=0m12s



Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 20:04
This is the link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oynJcSnLSI4

... not really sure why people use the word troll in 2012. It reminds me of Witch in 1720. I suppose it because we are stuck with Newton times still.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 20:46 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 20:58
Yes, because we're killing you or even burning you for your claims. Lets set fire to Pincho because he thinks differently. Sod that, I'd be burned to death for thinking differently, maybe not in the world of science, but if we started lynching people for thinking differently then we'd have a world without creative people. I wouldn't even want to crush your method of thinking, it'd make me a hypocrite.

Your claims have only been scrutinised and only because you put them up for discussion and thus got feedback, not necessarily the feedback you wanted but I guess people can only give their honest opinions and I think if they're brutally honest, then they're worth listening to more. Yes people strongly disagree and some think you're nuts and just trolling them (saying things to elicit a negative response, it's what a troll is in the 21st century, not a label for a witch style hunt). I think it's an arrogant claim to say, "I know something that proves all modern physics is wrong, it is amazing and I will enlighten the world, even though I just have a hypothesis and an unfinished simulation".

Of course, you could argue it until your face turns blue, but I will not accept your claims until you can offer up the evidence. I am open minded about it, but to be honest I don't think you've helped display your ideas as credible, but hey, I'm just some scientifically minded idiot on the web and not an actual scientist. Hopefully if you do present your simulation to the scientific community you'll let it speak for itself rather than you speak on its behalf and remain open minded about what they've got to say in response, because you might just come off as a snake oil salesman, which we see in pseudo-science and nobody in the scientific community takes pseudo-scientists seriously (that is, science that pretends to be scientific, but is BS basically, like homeopathy, which offers science-like claims (such as suggesting it works through Quantum mechanics), but is by no means scientific and has not been proven to work beyond a placebo effect).

But to my mind, if you lack the ability to demonstrate the evidence to somebody, then you shouldn't go around claiming what you have to be absolute fact or try to convince other people they're wrong. The whole point about showing, not telling. But I'm not really going to change anything.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 21:04
Quote: "... not really sure why people use the word troll in 2012. It reminds me of Witch in 1720. I suppose it because we are stuck with Newton times still."


I use it because it aptly describes what you are doing. Trololololoing.

And I think you think a little highly of yourself there, O Mighty Pincho, Knower of ALL the Physics!

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 22:14
I think I know it all because its simple. Like I said you just can't pull anything. That basically makes gravity a push force. And that's easy to program. And with a visible flow in the two slit experiment which science doesn't understand, and Einstein's backwards Cosmological Constant, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to say... "hey it's a push like a liquid flow."

My problem is with the simplicity of it requiring a proof. It's like saying "Prove that blood is red."

That's what I don't understand. Science cannot have put you in such a trance that the obvious is no longer obvious.

BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 22:55 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 23:01
Quote: "My problem is with the simplicity of it requiring a proof. It's like saying "Prove that blood is red.""


No its not, that's a really poor analogy.
Without proof, your hypothesis has equal weight to "The Universes according to BiggAdd"

Basically, as explained in The Universe according to BiggAdd, things happen because of the inter-dimensional Geese overlords, who are a bit fidgety and don't have much to do.
The Geese use modern interpretative dance and kidney beans flicked through the holes of sliced swiss cheese to shape the known Universe.

You are right, because the way science has spoon fed us over the years, I can't believe I have to supply proof to the blindingly obvious fact that the Universe according to BiggAdd is true.
I ran a computer simulation I made in DBC, and the universe formed the shape of a goose tucking into a big lump of swiss cheese. So I'm obviously correct.

Also, because we know geese exist, then its backwards, or not backwards. So maths is stupid and not at the same time. Therefore triangle custard.

I think I might publish my results into the big book of crazy nonsense. I'll see if I can put a word in for you too! I know the publisher (He's called the internet).

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:04
I think the Goose Theory has more weight to it as it's blindingly obvious it's true.

Quote: "Also, because we know geese exist, then its backwards, or not backwards. So maths is stupid and not at the same time. Therefore triangle custard."


This just made me lose it for some reason.

TheComet
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:04
I actually find BiggAdd's universe more plausible.

TheComet

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:06
That's because he has Geese to back up his claims.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:12 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 23:14
OK, but I would never put my faith in a religion like science. I suppose that's just me.

Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:23 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 23:23
Science is simply the act of studying things. Science is not the results or the answers whether they are true or not, it is the process, the question, and the search. There is nothing to believe in or not about science, if you study the universe with the intention of gathering and presenting facts then you are engaging in science.

What you don't believe in or put faith in seems to be the existence of fact

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:25 Edited at: 9th Jul 2012 23:29
Quote: "What you don't believe in or put faith in seems to be the existence of fact"


I just don't see how science is more fact than Christianity.

The big G could be God or Gravity.
Walking on water could be Magnetism.
Attraction could be Raising the Dead Sea.
The Big Bang could be God Gave us Light.

I just don't see how you can go with physics that don't work when they are visible, only when they are invisible they work.

But nobody has faith in my physics which are all visible in real life.

Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 9th Jul 2012 23:43 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 00:08
Quote: "I just don't see how science is more fact than Christianity."


What I'm saying is that science is not fact, science is looking for fact. If you look for facts you are doing science, even if the facts you look for differ from current accepted facts that's fine it's still science and has nothing to do with belief in the accepted fact. Our problem is that you don't even care to look for any facts even your own, and that makes anything you do or present less even than an opinion it is nothing more than a wild guess which can't be any more believe able than the Geeseverse no matter how much explaining you do bout how it 'should' work. You can't say 'does' work until it is observed and proven. A simulation is not an observation, it can only say this is what should happen, never this is what does happen because ultimately a simulation is not real, and never can be perfect

And also
Quote: "My problem is with the simplicity of it requiring a proof. It's like saying "Prove that blood is red."


No it's like you are saying I dont believe that blood Is red due to the presence of hemoglobin, I believe it is red because I eat red fruit. Hemoglobin was observed by 'science' and cannot normally be seen so therefore is false. Clearly both apples and blood are red as anyone can plainly see just by looking and so I must be correct.

Everyone observes and accepts blood to be red that's not the question, the argument is in the why is red, how does it work. Just as everyone observes and accepts that some force keeps us in contact with the ground, our debate Is in why and how. That is not simply apprent and obvious. It requires explanation and explanations are just guesses without proof

How about a man is standing over a body and he is holding a gun, he obviously must have done it, so let's just go ahead and execute him it's so simple why should proof be required? I mean really

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 00:06 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 00:06
I wish science was looking for facts from 1722. That's a long time to wait. Most people have died, and they still aren't looking for the facts. Why should I wait till I die for science to do anything.

Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 00:16 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 00:37
Everyone is looking for facts but you, you may not believe that the facts which they are finding are correct, you may not believe that the are looking in the right direction or for the right things but how can you possibly say that no one is looking? That's argumentative or the sake of being contrary

Here let's change gears for a bit and throw out the semantics, you initial presentation of the idea was interesting, it is really your attitude and the manner that you have argued it that has destroyed your case so let us suppose that your physics are correct, now let's think about it and devise even one real world experiment which could conceivably be performed to prove or support this. To me the whole thing really hinges on the negative mass. How can its presence be observed, measured? How can its interactions or lack there o be observed and measured? If this is the true nature of our reality then it must be verifiable in our reality and therefore there must be some experiment which can produce results to support the idea

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:08 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:14
Quote: "I just don't see how science is more fact than Christianity."


Scientific discussion is not banned from discussion on these forums, but religion is. I could answer this question, however, I will respect the AUP in this regard.

Quote: "Why should I wait till I die for science to do anything."


Because reality doesn't care what you want. Science is a long process and it takes long time to give answers because we're only finite beings with finite technology. But if you turn this into, "what good does science do?" argument I might have to take your computer away from you, tell you to never drive or use a GPS, to never use many day-to-day items and forbid you from visiting the doctor, taking medicine or going to the hospital or to eat many types of food. Much of the 'inaccurate' sciences have managed to achieve so much as a result of those years of research and it is simply amazing.

Yes, science takes time, for example, I wish breakthroughs into Alzheimer's research would come a lot sooner, maybe my grand mother would have recovered before it got serious maybe she would have died with her mind and memories in tact, but unfortunately, just because you want the answers to be there quicker, doesn't mean reality will let that happen.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:14 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:23
Quote: "To me the whole thing really hinges on the negative mass. How can its presence be observed, measured? How can its interactions or lack there o be observed and measured? If this is the true nature of our reality then it must be verifiable in our reality and therefore there must be some experiment which can produce results to support the idea"


Ok, well this is found by just putting a -m in the current maths. That's the problem. Electrons are negative, and have pull, yet are called positive mass. To find an electrons mass a particle was fired towards the electron, and the curve of the particle around the electron would signify its mass. But in real life a boat curves around a sink hole, or a whirlpool. The hole is missing mass, and is therefore negative mass.

So basically you use your eyes.

Now to other thing is that Newton never did a test for attraction. So using your eyes is better than no test at all.

A black hole is negative mass. It is called a HOLE, and a hole is negative mass. A hole is missing material. You dig the material out of a hole.

A Plug Hole.
A Black Hole.

Why is a plughole missing mass, and yet a Blackhole has mass.

Also 4 years after I talked about negative mass, Stephen Hawking used my examples in a TV program, but said Negative Energy instead.

I had a picture of an igloo made from a hole, and Stephen Hawking had a man digging a hole.

26 minutes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU



So negative energy, or negative mass is conjectured. But Black holes are holes in space, and not conjectured. Why not just call a hole a hole?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:15 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:21
Quote: "Because reality doesn't care what you want. Science is a long process and it takes long time to give answers because we're only finite beings with finite technology. But if you turn this into, "what good does science do?" argument I might have to take your computer away from you, tell you to never drive or use a GPS, to never use many day-to-day items and forbid you from visiting the doctor, taking medicine or going to the hospital or to eat many types of food. Much of the 'inaccurate' sciences have managed to achieve so much as a result of those years of research and it is simply amazing.

Yes, science takes time, for example, I wish breakthroughs into Alzheimer's research would come a lot sooner, maybe my grand mother would have recovered before it got serious, but unfortunately, just because you want the answers to be there quicker, doesn't mean reality will let that happen."


Actually I don't want to go into the medical possibilities of getting the physics the right way around.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:22 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:23
Quote: "Cancer isn't so hard to figure in my theory."


YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH RIGHT NOW.

Literally EVERYONE (all but one of my grandparents, my girlfriend's father, my uncle and a lifelong friend) died because of cancer.

I can't believe you would have the AUDACITY to come on here and claim that cancer "isn't that hard to figure out in [your] theory". Scientists around the world are working on it, barely able to figure out a cure and you have the audacity to come here and claim it isn't that hard to figure out in your theory. How the hell is it even related!?

Quote: "Actually I don't want to go into the medical possibilities of getting the physics the right way around."


Too late. Explain yourself.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:23 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:24
No, science is saving many lives, it has brought so many solutions to so many problems and has cured so, so, so, so many diseases, solved many hunger issues (not world hunger, unfortunately) and helped deal with many problems. They've not solved them all, but scientists are working on it and have managed to achieve so much you fail to give them credit for.

If your model is so much better, why haven't you used it to achieve the greatness you claim it is capable of? Think of the kind of funding you'd get if you could actually apply it to something that would save lives. My aunt has got cancer and she hasn't yet got the all clear, current methods have done a lot to help her. If cancer really is that simple with your theory, then do something about it. Show us how easy it is.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:23 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:27
This is quite possibly the stupidest pile of drivel I have read in a long, long time.

Congratulations: you are either a master troll or a total moron

EDIT: You sound amazingly similar to this nutcase who is also convinced that he is right. with no reason or logic what-so-ever

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:24
My mom has cancer.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:24
Or a Mastered Trollish Moron.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:25
Quote: "My mom has cancer."


Well then why don't you cure her if it isn't so hard to figure out?

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:26
It takes a team to work together.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:27 Edited at: 10th Jul 2012 01:28
With your prickish attitude I'm not surprised you haven't managed to build one up.

Now you're just laying flamebait and I've helped feed the troll in you. I'm done. I'm sick of you.

Never thought I'd ever be involved in a forum fight of this level.

EDIT: And yes, I've said I was done before, but this time I mean it. Last time was more of a joke as I was trying to put humor into this thread.

Matty H
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:28
I've just read the first page of this thread.

Talk about thinking outside the box, there are some good ideas here I think.

I too have a problem with attraction. It was explained to me once that a repulsive force can be explained by imagining a particle travelling between two bodies. This does not explain an attractive force such as gravity or magnetism. Einstein made a breakthrough with curved space-time.

I think you could also explain attraction as a negative energy particle travelling between two bodies, sapping energy from the bodies instead of increasing energy, hence bringing them closer together.

This is why I like the way Pincho is thinking on these matters. We must remember that our understanding of gravity could still just be approximation of what is really going on. Einstein brought gravity into focus but there are at least two elephants in the room, 'Dark Energy' and 'Dark Matter'.

If I have one criticism it would be pinning your hopes on the computer simulation, although this is interesting it's not where I would focus my time and energy.

I would concentrate on the maths, you have provided one formula which turns the force of gravity around. I would hope you may be able to build on this and see where the maths takes you. If your theory is correct it will still be compatible with most of todays maths and physics but perhaps with a different slant, bringing things into focus and perhaps explaining things like 'Dark Energy'.

One last thing, we must not forget that there are lots of physicist around the world being paid to sit in rooms and mess with the laws of physics. One Physicist was seeing what would happen if gravity wore off at certain distances and become active again at some further point, I think I seen it on Horizon(UK TV program) or something. These guys hope they may turn something on its head and explain some of the things current physics cannot.

Why should Pincho be any different

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:35
Quote: "I think you could also explain attraction as a negative energy particle travelling between two bodies, sapping energy from the bodies instead of increasing energy, hence bringing them closer together."


That's right. We see water heat up, and turn into steam, and rise into the air, and float around the Earth. The water that occupied the original space has now scaled out of the way.

The gravity that flows into a body, scales down, and turns into magnetism. this then travels away from the body creating lines around the Earth.

Go with what you can see.

Ortu
DBPro Master
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:42
Gotta take a break so this one is quick
Quote: "Why is a plughole missing mass, and yet a Blackhole has mass."


Hole is a poor term to apply to a black hole honestly. The difference Is that a black hole isn't empty he way a plug hole is. They are not apples to apples. A black hole is more like a trash compactor than a drain. Stuff goes in and gets compressed adding the stuffs mass to the black holes mass. A drain takes stuff in and that stuff passes through to somewhere else. the stuffs mass doesn't stay in the drain hole. Thus a hole is empty, a black hole is not. A black hole is really no different than a sun or planet, just on a larger scale and more compressed in its matter

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 01:48
Quote: "Hole is a poor term to apply to a black hole honestly. The difference Is that a black hole isn't empty he way a plug hole is. They are not apples to apples. A black hole is more like a trash compactor than a drain. Stuff goes in and gets compressed adding the stuffs mass to the black holes mass. A drain takes stuff in and that stuff passes through to somewhere else. the stuffs mass doesn't stay in the drain hole. Thus a hole is empty, a black hole is not. A black hole is really no different than a sun or planet, just on a larger scale and more compressed in its matter."


Using Cause and affect.

Hole
Stuff enters hole through flow
Stuff is also full of holes
Stuff scales down
back to hole

The mass is the gravity flow cause and affect..

Hole
gravity flows into hole dragging stuff with it
Stuff also contains holes
gravity flow creates mass force


So all consequences of a negative mass hole in Cause and affect.

Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 02:01
I'm sorry if I have upset anyone in this thread. that's not my intention. But it will always be annoying to some people. There is no getting round that.

JLMoondog
Moderator
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2009
Location: Paradox
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 02:05
Flame

This thread has been locked due to the unmanageable number of flame responses. Please refer to section 3.11 - 3.12 of the Acceptable Usage Policy for full details:

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?gf=aup#forum

AUP Section 3.17 ...Moderators shall, at their discretion, determine what constitutes a violation of these terms, along with generally accepted netiquette standards, and can take action against those who violate these rules.

If you contributed to the reason for locking, you may now find yourself on moderation, or in extreme cases a ban.

JLMoondog
Moderator
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2009
Location: Paradox
Posted: 10th Jul 2012 02:06
Sorry guys, going to have to shut this down now. I won't slap anyone but I advise everyone to just cool off and walk away for now.

Thanks.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-19 18:24:37
Your offset time is: 2024-09-19 18:24:37