Quake3World

Kracus wrote:Meh I don't really see how both our theory's are any different. I said something causes the fabric to crumple I don't know what but you stated that it's under it's own gravitational field which I'm not saying is wrong. In fact it could very well be but it doesn't change what I'm saying. One way or another that change happens just like I said it would. I didn't know the why but I know the result. Which like I keep telling you is actualy a warp in spacetime or in the fabric of reality. Like balling up a bunch of lint the fabric of reality is balled up at the center of a black hole. When you stretch the material it creates gravity I don't see why the idea of it being balled up seems so strange given the strange phenomenon that consists of a black hole to begin with.

You seriously are an idiot in every sense that the dictionary decribes you to be.

You invariably refuse to educate yourself on any subject that you feel is too complex to actually learn. Instead, you make up fantasies to explain phenomena that you refuse to research for yourself. You make up theories with a complete lack of understanding anything about the subject yet feel your "theories" deserve merit and acknowledgement.

It's the same reason religion was made....stupid people trying to compensate for a lack of effort to learn the truth.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Kracus wrote:Meh I don't really see how both our theory's are any different. I said something causes the fabric to crumple I don't know what but you stated that it's under it's own gravitational field which I'm not saying is wrong. In fact it could very well be but it doesn't change what I'm saying. One way or another that change happens just like I said it would. I didn't know the why but I know the result. Which like I keep telling you is actualy a warp in spacetime or in the fabric of reality. Like balling up a bunch of lint the fabric of reality is balled up at the center of a black hole. When you stretch the material it creates gravity I don't see why the idea of it being balled up seems so strange given the strange phenomenon that consists of a black hole to begin with.

You seriously are an idiot in every sense that the dictionary decribes you to be.

You invariably refuse to educate yourself on any subject that you feel is too complex to actually learn. Instead, you make up fantasies to explain phenomena that you refuse to research for yourself. You make up theories with a complete lack of understanding anything about the subject yet feel your "theories" deserve merit and acknowledgement.

It's the same reason religion was made....stupid people trying to compensate for a lack of effort to learn the truth.

Exactly what he said.

tnf wrote:
1) What is a black hole?
2) Do all stars end up as black holes?
2a) What are the basic stages in the life cycle of a star and what events trigger the transition from one stage to another?
3) How is the effect of gravity actually perpetuated through the universe?
4) What is gravitational lensing?
5) What is an 'event horizon"?
6) Is the universe expanding?
7) Can a universe be finite but not bounded?
8) What are some of the possible 'shapes' of the universe?
9) Is the fabric of spacetime actually smooth (according to quantum mechanics?)

1. I don't know the specifics, just how gravity might be working to create one. Like I keep saying, instead of a huge warp in spacetime around a super large object causing massive gravity I think perhaps you have a situation where the stretching of the fabric of reality that causes gravity is being done on a different scale in a black hole. The idea that gravity itself is responsible is definitely plausible since the whole issue revolves around gravity.

-------=---------
-------@--------

See where the = sign is would be where I think the fabric of reality simply stretches out to form a contour around any object. However the @ represents the fabric being completely bundled together. In fact at the center it might even be plausible that all gravity cancels itself out. It's the bundling of spacetime that's critical to my point.

2. Apparently no.

2a. I dont' know, however stars are not what I've been concentrating on. My observations so far have been to analize how empty space interacts with the rest of the universe. That's all I've been looking at, empty space.

3. Through the fabric of reality. It's stretching in anyway creates a gravitational push towards the opposite direction it's being pushed to. I beleive it's the motion of the fabric to want to return to it's neutral position int he unvierse that causes this. This neutral position likely changes and they're linked by black hole throughout the universe. The black holes basicly create the tension needed. Naturaly without a black hole the fabric of reality would not create gravity. But of course without the phenomenon of a black hole and the fabric of reality present together our universe could simply not exist as it is now.

4. I've never heard the term before. However it sounds a lot like a term that could be used in relation to what I'm saying. For instance.... If it was possible to create half a planet it might be possible to play funny tricks with gravity. On the flat part of the planet gravity wouldn't exist or perhaps the force of gravity on the other side of the planet might eject you from the planet. It'd be a form of focused gravity so to speak. Perhaps if you could warp the fabric of reality on a smaller scale by bundling it together like a black hole you could also control it's force and direction.

5. I have no idea. I'm assuming it has something to do with the fabric of reality.

6. Yes, defninitely

7. no it has to have a boundary I'm guessing at this point.

8. It has to be somewhat spherical. Doesn't have to be a perfect sphere but it would definitely be in that general shape.

9. I have no idea what the texture of spacetime or the fabric of reality is like. However I suspect it is not smooth. In fact I suspect it's more like a cog wheel fitting together perfectly. If you were able to turn one of these cogs theoreticaly based on what I'm proposing all the other cogs would also have to turn. Whether this is in a 2 or 3 dimensional way however is still a mystery to me.

1) wrong/misinformed/you need to do some research.
2) correct, but do you know why?
2a) Stars are critical to all of this, because they are what give rise to black holes.
3) fabric of spacetime (more correct than reality). But your explanation has some real issues.
4) Half a planet? And gravity would always 'exist' around ANY object that has MASS, BECAUSE GRAVITY IS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN THE BENDING OF SPACETIME BY MASS.
5) If you've been doing all this talk about black holes but have no idea what an event horizon is, go hit yourself in the head with a hammer or LEARN TO LEARN. They are a fundamental aspect to black holes - which you still don't understand even remotely.
7) No, a universe could be finite without being bounded.
8) Doesn't have to be spherical (we don't knwo for sure)
9) You are missing the whole point - on the subatomic level, nature is dominated by randomness and unpredictability - its all about probabilties, etc. Not a cog at all..but rather a frothy mix of subatomic particles jumping to and fro, but not anywhere in between.

If I were grading this - you didn't do well. And, most of these (with the exception of about 2 questions) are given to my 10th grade science students who really have no trouble with them. Do you know why? Because they have been EDUCATED. I don't understand your 'mental inertia.'

I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

Kracus wrote:I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

You know...when you answered that you didn't know what a event horizon was I laughed...especially after all the threads you've posted in about black holes. But then again...I wasn't surprised.

And now...once again...you want someone else to fill in the blanks that you refuse to do yourself.

lol

Kracus wrote:I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

if you did well in physics and still have such a fundamental misunderstanding of all things to do with the subject, your teacher failed miserably.


As for half a planet - can you have half a hole? Or do you just mean a planet with one side that is flat (like a half a circle)?

And unconventional or not - your way of looking at this is completely wrong, so why bother wasting time on it? it's like saying 'I have an unconventional way to look at relativity - E= mass x the speed of light CUBED. Its just wrong.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Kracus wrote:I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

You know...when you answered that you didn't know what a event horizon was I laughed...especially after all the threads you've posted in about black holes. But then again...I wasn't surprised.

And now...once again...you want someone else to fill in the blanks that you refuse to do yourself.

lol

I dont' know many things from memory it doesn't mean I can't research it if I was going to do a test on it.

Kracus is the mascot for Intelligent Design

tnf wrote:

Kracus wrote:I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

if you did well in physics and still have such a fundamental misunderstanding of all things to do with the subject, your teacher failed miserably.


As for half a planet - can you have half a hole? Or do you just mean a planet with one side that is flat (like a half a circle)?

And unconventional or not - your way of looking at this is completely wrong, so why bother wasting time on it? it's like saying 'I have an unconventional way to look at relativity - E= mass x the speed of light CUBED. Its just wrong.

lol yeah half a circle basicly. Cut an apple in half and picture that in space. How would gravity affect such an object since spacetime isn't being warped in a circular way. We also know the higher in our atmosphere we go the less gravity affects us even if it's a very miniscule ammount, imagine how half a planet would behavein terms of gravity. My question to you is would there be gravity on the flat side?

Kracus wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Kracus wrote:I understand what the real awnsers are tnf I'm just looking at this whole gravity thing from another point of view and in an unconventional way. I actualy did very well in physics class and chemistry.

Also, on the half a planet thing how are you so sure gravity would be the same around the planet, please explain this to me.

You know...when you answered that you didn't know what a event horizon was I laughed...especially after all the threads you've posted in about black holes. But then again...I wasn't surprised.

And now...once again...you want someone else to fill in the blanks that you refuse to do yourself.

lol

I dont' know many things from memory it doesn't mean I can't research it if I was going to do a test on it.

Forget memory kracus. If you took anything from a physics class it would be a fundamental understanding of some of the most basic principles that govern the behavior of the world and universe.

As for gravity -

Look up the equation for calculating its force.
Then figure it out. You will have to work for this one.

Kracus wrote:I dont' know many things from memory it doesn't mean I can't research it if I was going to do a test on it.

And yet...with a few simple questions...you couldn't even take the time to do a quick google or wikipedia search to find out at least SOMETHING about the topics you answered "no idea" to. And when you're off the computer you'll not research anything cause you'll be busy tipping for beers. And tomorrow at this same time you'll have learned absolutely nothing about what you are speaking of today.

This was a minor test...and you failed horribly because you insist on remaining ignorant.

Ignorance would be refusal to admit you're wrong.

I'm guessing, and I havent learned anything about gravity for almost 10 years... that since gravity is a function of the interaction between two bodies' mass and distance, and not shape, that shape is irrelevant

All your answer lay withing the continium transfunctioner.

tnf...here's an ethics question for ya:

If a student refuses to learn, is it prudent to simply stop teaching the student since it's a waste of time?

And in those cases...do you try to encourage the student to learn the art of pushing a broom as a lifetime career?

tnf wrote: You will have to work for this one.

Not to steal this particular thunder, I wanted to see if something I learned a decade ago in a high school physics class is still lingering in my head.. and I didn't even do that well in physics

tnf wrote:As for gravity -

Look up the equation for calculating its force.
Then figure it out. You will have to work for this one.

can you tell me ? i remember learning it in physics once upon a time and if you dont tell me its gunna bug me :icon23:

force = mass / distance ? (or weight)?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:tnf...here's an ethics question for ya:

If a student refuses to learn, is it prudent to simply stop teaching the student since it's a waste of time?

And in those cases...do you try to encourage the student to learn the art of pushing a broom as a lifetime career?

I see them refuse to learn all the time. They almost do the opposite of learning...whatever that is. As for whether or not it is prudent to stop teaching them - it kind of depends on the situation. If they suddenly stop working, then there is usually something going on outside of the classroom that is the cause. Some are just plain lazy and completely unmotivated. I will give them as much time and energy as I would another student, but no more (meaning I won't go to great lengths to get them off their ass.) Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe that kids who refuse to do anything should get MORE time than kids who are busting their butts. And if a kid is working, but failing, I will go out of my way to help them.
But society today is changing in the states. It is those lazy, unmotivated, completely apathetic students who are becoming the focus, because they bring down the schools progress, which is real bad for NCLB. So, more and more resources are shifted to them - figuring out how we can just 'get them to learn enough to pass the test.' Concurrently, you are seeing money for advanced classes, etc., going down the tubes. The whole system moves towards a standard of mediocrity, because it is easier to reach. The people behind it will throw out data showing how standards have actually gone up, etc., but most of the time they are giving the data a healthy massage. Thanks NCLB and GWB...

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u6l3c.html

Look in there.

losCHUNK wrote:

tnf wrote:As for gravity -

Look up the equation for calculating its force.
Then figure it out. You will have to work for this one.

can you tell me ? i remember learning it in physics once upon a time and if you dont tell me its gunna bug me :icon23:

force = mass / distance ? (or weight)?

No.

Sorry.

Force = Jedi + Lucas - (Industrial Light & Magic / Merchandise)

You know tnf, I was probably one of those kids, I didn't have to study or really work at anything in school to pass but my history teacher changed that. He motivated me to do better. I've always though he was probably one of the best influences in my life. He basicly makes a person see how being lazy is really stupid.