| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"q-bit" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2007 05:52:13 PM |
| Object: |
Strong gravitational fields |
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 06:59:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 08:28:32 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
In the following paper g~10^30 m/s^2 is mentioned:
Mario Goto, "The Equivalence Principle and gravitational and
inertial mass relation of classical charged particle"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0104021
.
|
|
|
| User: "JM Albuquerque" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 06:20:06 PM |
|
|
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
news:fbd3mu$m1r$1@aioe.org...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so
far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
It's quite funny the way you compare an acceleration with a
velocity.
The (Newton) kinetic energy associated at a mass speeding at 17,000 times
the speed of light will be something.
(17,000*c)^2 = .........puff.... the computer is gone.
Dam you q-bit! You broke my computer!
How many times did I tell you not to play with black holes?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 02:56:39 PM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 9:28 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 04:53:04 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote
On Sep 1, 9:28 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
The above calculation was done using the Schwarzschild Radius calculation.
But as was shown today in the other thread Schwarzschild Radius as the
event horizon of a black hole is a WRONG concept and wrong value.
The real event horizon ("eh") radius of this black hole is rather:
R_eh = sqrt(G^2*M)
~ 163,000 m
Then
g_eh = G*M/R_eh^2
= 14.99E9 m/s^2
and that's exactly(!) 50 times c !
This practically means: any body in free fall, released (somehow) from say 1m
above this radius, will fall with a velocity of about 50 times c onto/into the black hole!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
04 Sep 2007 02:08:09 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 5:53 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote
On Sep 1, 9:28 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
The above calculation was done using the Schwarzschild Radius calculation.
But as was shown today in the other thread Schwarzschild Radius as the
event horizon of a black hole is a WRONG concept and wrong value.
The real event horizon ("eh") radius of this black hole is rather:
R_eh = sqrt(G^2*M)
~ 163,000 m
Then
g_eh = G*M/R_eh^2
= 14.99E9 m/s^2
and that's exactly(!) 50 times c !
This practically means: any body in free fall, released (somehow) from say 1m
above this radius, will fall with a velocity of about 50 times c onto/into the black hole!
You haven't SHOWN anything, except for an apparent confusion of
velocity and acceleration.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 05:55:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:53:04 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote
On Sep 1, 9:28 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
The above calculation was done using the Schwarzschild Radius calculation.
But as was shown today in the other thread Schwarzschild Radius as the
event horizon of a black hole is a WRONG concept and wrong value.
The real event horizon ("eh") radius of this black hole is rather:
R_eh = sqrt(G^2*M)
~ 163,000 m
Then
g_eh = G*M/R_eh^2
= 14.99E9 m/s^2
and that's exactly(!) 50 times c !
Velocity: length / time
Acceleration: length/time^2
Until you know the difference, you won't do anything but make yourself
look extremely stupid.
This practically means: any body in free fall, released (somehow) from say 1m
above this radius, will fall with a velocity of about 50 times c onto/into the black hole!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 06:07:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:56:39 -0000, Igor <thoovler@excite.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:28 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
What the hell's that supposed to mean?
He thinks acceleration and velocity are equivalent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 10:22:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
Either I like the shape of the number "3" or it is because that is a
typical size of a stellar black hole.
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
....and wrong.
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Look, stupid. The quantity "g" is an acceleration, not a velocity.
Weren't you taught units?
In the following paper g~10^30 m/s^2 is mentioned:
Mario Goto, "The Equivalence Principle and gravitational and
inertial mass relation of classical charged particle"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0104021
You don't even understand calculus. Who the ***** do you think your
fooling?
This paper has NOTHING to do with what you wrote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 11:49:08 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
Either I like the shape of the number "3" or it is because that is a
typical size of a stellar black hole.
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Look, stupid. The quantity "g" is an acceleration, not a velocity.
Weren't you taught units?
The dumb one is just yourself. g is of course accelleration, but translates
to velocity when in action.
In the following paper g~10^30 m/s^2 is mentioned:
Mario Goto, "The Equivalence Principle and gravitational and
inertial mass relation of classical charged particle"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0104021
You don't even understand calculus.
Shut up, dumb Eric! I do understand calculus more than you!
Not necessarily your braindamaged GR calculus, but my calculus
gives at least correct results.
Who the ***** do you think your fooling?
This paper has NOTHING to do with what you wrote.
Then you must be blind because g~10^30 m/s^2 is mentioned there like I said.
Who the ***** do you think your fooling?
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 01:37:58 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 06:49:08 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Why do you mention "3 solar masses"? What's so special about it?
Either I like the shape of the number "3" or it is because that is a
typical size of a stellar black hole.
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Newtonian gravitation is WRONG, *****.
Newtonian gravitation (here g=GM/R^2) is CORRECT, *****!
It's Einstein's GR is WRONG! Completely wrong!
Stop pretending you know more about physics than myself
or anyone else on this newsgroup.
I know more than you, idiot!
And nobody here is such a stupid bragger like you.
<rest of Dumb Eric's off-topic crap snipped>
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 01:59:16 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
Anyone who can't tell the difference between acceleration and velocity
does not have the right to tell me that I am wrong.
but you are wrong, lying idiot!
Remember 1/4 is 0.25 ! :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 12:32:53 AM |
|
|
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
Dumb Eric, is now your GR-world breaking apart? :-)
Do all the GR lies still make sense to yourself? :-)
Q.E.D.!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 12:58:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:32:53 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Acceleration is not velocity.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
1) I said 1/4GM. That is not the same as .25 * GM. Two seconds
checking units would reveal the error - except you don't understand
dimensional analysis.
2) Acceleration is not velocity.
3) The quanitty 1/4GM is for units in which c = 1. Ten bucks says you
aren't even entering the right numbers.
4) You are stupid. It is a good thing you post under a pseudonym
because you are showing the entire planet how stupid you are for all
time in an archived medium.
Dumb Eric, is now your GR-world breaking apart? :-)
Do all the GR lies still make sense to yourself? :-)
Q.E.D.!
How old are you? 16? 17?
You are coming to an intellectual gunfight armed with a twig someone
tossed you. You don't know what you are talking about, and it is
obvious to *everyone* but yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 01:18:43 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:32:53 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Acceleration is not velocity.
I'm talking of the velocity when the surface gravity (the accelleration rate) is in action.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
1) I said 1/4GM. That is not the same as .25 * GM.
Really not? :-) Then prove that, according to you, 1/4 is not .25, Dumb Eric!
Two seconds checking units would reveal the error -
except you don't understand dimensional analysis.
There is nothing else to interpret in.
1/4 is for everybody on Earth 0.25, except for you. How come, Dumb Eric? :-)
2) Acceleration is not velocity.
True, and you are Dumb Eric who repeats himself, cf. above.
3) The quanitty 1/4GM is for units in which c = 1.
Tell us more lies, Dumb Eric.
Ten bucks says you aren't even entering the right numbers.
So, Dumb Eric, now you have spread so much lies that you now
should prove what you say by calculating the g for this object.
Can you, or can you not, that's the interessting question, Dumb Eric!
But as we all know, you are to dumb to calculate g for this object.
You are coming to an intellectual gunfight armed with a twig someone
tossed you. You don't know what you are talking about, and it is
obvious to *everyone* but yourself.
ROTFL! :-)
For me you are like a cockroach robot... Enough said? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 06:52:42 AM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 2:18 am, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:32:53 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Acceleration is not velocity.
I'm talking of the velocity when the surface gravity (the accelleration rate) is in action.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
1) I said 1/4GM. That is not the same as .25 * GM.
Really not? :-) Then prove that, according to you, 1/4 is not .25, Dumb Eric!
You misunderstood (surprise!). The reciprocal of 4GM is not GM/4.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 01:42:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 08:18:43 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:32:53 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Acceleration is not velocity.
I'm talking of the velocity when the surface gravity (the accelleration rate) is in action.
Really?
Show us how you obtain your magic numbers, then explain why anyone
should care.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
1) I said 1/4GM. That is not the same as .25 * GM.
Really not? :-) Then prove that, according to you, 1/4 is not .25, Dumb Eric!
....because it is?
1/4GM is the same as (4GM)^-1
Two seconds checking units would reveal the error -
except you don't understand dimensional analysis.
There is nothing else to interpret in.
1/4 is for everybody on Earth 0.25, except for you. How come, Dumb Eric? :-)
2) Acceleration is not velocity.
True, and you are Dumb Eric who repeats himself, cf. above.
3) The quanitty 1/4GM is for units in which c = 1.
Tell us more lies, Dumb Eric.
Ten bucks says you aren't even entering the right numbers.
So, Dumb Eric, now you have spread so much lies that you now
should prove what you say by calculating the g for this object.
The magnitude of acceleration in Schwarzschild geometry is GM * [r^2 *
sqrt(1 - 2GM / [r*c^2] ) ]^-1
The event horizon is at r = 2GM/c^2
Surface gravity is defined such that K = V * a, where a is
acceleration and V is a red-shift factor. [If you don't like it, too
fucking bad] Where V = sqrt(1-2GM / rc^2)
V*a is normalized to be equal to GM/r^2.
So, evaluated at the event horizon, K = 1/4GM in c = 1 units just like
I said.
I can explain the argument but I can't make you understand. I can
derive everything I have written here but there is zero point in
replicating the argument when you don't even understand high school
calculus.
Can you, or can you not, that's the interessting question, Dumb Eric!
But as we all know, you are to dumb to calculate g for this object.
K = c^4 / 4GM
Enter the numbers yourself. If you can't figure out how to enter c, G,
and M yourself you have no right to question me.
You are coming to an intellectual gunfight armed with a twig someone
tossed you. You don't know what you are talking about, and it is
obvious to *everyone* but yourself.
ROTFL! :-)
For me you are like a cockroach robot... Enough said? :-)
Then post under your real name.
.
|
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 01:52:59 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 08:18:43 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:32:53 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
M = 5.9673E30 kg
R = 8864 m
g = 5.07E12 m/s^2 ; ie. the surface gravity
...and wrong.
BS. It is correct!
Sorry, your high school education is worthless. You cannot use
Newtonian gravitation here. Surface gravity for a black hole is 1/4GM.
Tell us more GR BS, Dumb Eric!
The laws of the universe (Newton's laws) are valid for all masses alike,
without making any difference between planet, sun, or black hole.
Addendum: if what Dumb Eric says were true (it definitely is wrong,
he is the biggest GR liar!) it even would mean
11234439734210220.5 m/s = ie. about 374,000 times the speed of light! :-)))
Acceleration is not velocity.
I'm talking of the velocity when the surface gravity (the accelleration rate) is in action.
Really?
Show us how you obtain your magic numbers, then explain why anyone
should care.
Look, this g on the surface means about 17,000 times the speed of light...
Dumb Eric doesn't know what he talkes about! I said 17,000 times c,
but he denies this and says "no, it's only 1/4 GM". But Dumb Eric is
that much bad in maths that he does not understand that 1/4 GM
means even much more: about 374,000 times c !!! :-)))
ROTFL! :-)))
1) I said 1/4GM. That is not the same as .25 * GM.
Really not? :-) Then prove that, according to you, 1/4 is not .25, Dumb Eric!
...because it is?
1/4GM is the same as (4GM)^-1
Two seconds checking units would reveal the error -
except you don't understand dimensional analysis.
There is nothing else to interpret in.
1/4 is for everybody on Earth 0.25, except for you. How come, Dumb Eric? :-)
2) Acceleration is not velocity.
True, and you are Dumb Eric who repeats himself, cf. above.
3) The quanitty 1/4GM is for units in which c = 1.
Tell us more lies, Dumb Eric.
Ten bucks says you aren't even entering the right numbers.
So, Dumb Eric, now you have spread so much lies that you now
should prove what you say by calculating the g for this object.
The magnitude of acceleration in Schwarzschild geometry is GM * [r^2 *
sqrt(1 - 2GM / [r*c^2] ) ]^-1
The event horizon is at r = 2GM/c^2
Surface gravity is defined such that K = V * a, where a is
acceleration and V is a red-shift factor. [If you don't like it, too
fucking bad] Where V = sqrt(1-2GM / rc^2)
V*a is normalized to be equal to GM/r^2.
So, evaluated at the event horizon, K = 1/4GM in c = 1 units just like
I said.
I can explain the argument but I can't make you understand. I can
derive everything I have written here but there is zero point in
replicating the argument when you don't even understand high school
calculus.
Can you, or can you not, that's the interessting question, Dumb Eric!
But as we all know, you are to dumb to calculate g for this object.
K = c^4 / 4GM
You have calculated totally irrelevant crap!
Just calculate g for this object, IF YOU CAN, you lying idiot!
Enter the numbers yourself. If you can't figure out how to enter c, G,
and M yourself you have no right to question me.
I am shi*ting on you, and your intellect and your knowledge! It's not much! :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 09:30:16 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Assuming that "surface" refers to event horizon, would not the
gravitational strength be the same for *all* Schwarzschild black holes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 10:09:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:30:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Assuming that "surface" refers to event horizon, would not the
gravitational strength be the same for *all* Schwarzschild black holes?
No.
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface gravity than a 3
million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases, surface gravity
decreases.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 10:23:02 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:30:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Assuming that "surface" refers to event horizon, would not the
gravitational strength be the same for *all* Schwarzschild black holes?
No.
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface gravity than a 3
million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases, surface gravity
decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant escape, so
right at the horizon the gravitational strength should be the same,
by definition.
-Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 10:55:44 PM |
|
|
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q0qCi.65952$Xa3.17591@attbi_s22...
Eric Gisse wrote:
....
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface
gravity than a 3 million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases,
surface gravity decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant
escape, so right at the horizon the gravitational strength
should be the same, by definition.
The *esacpe velocities* are the same at the event horizon. The
"surface" gravitation is not.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 11:22:09 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q0qCi.65952$Xa3.17591@attbi_s22...
Eric Gisse wrote:
...
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface
gravity than a 3 million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases,
surface gravity decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant
escape, so right at the horizon the gravitational strength
should be the same, by definition.
The *esacpe velocities* are the same at the event horizon. The
"surface" gravitation is not.
David A. Smith
Yes--Sorry, 1/4GM, Eric was right... I shouldn't have had that
beer tonight... Only having a couple of beers a year... one does
a pretty good job on me. We were at a wedding tonight.
Sorry!
--Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 05:36:17 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RTqCi.65988$Xa3.63730@attbi_s22...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Sam Wormley:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:q0qCi.65952$Xa3.17591@attbi_s22...
Eric Gisse wrote:
...
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface
gravity than a 3 million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases,
surface gravity decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant
escape, so right at the horizon the gravitational strength
should be the same, by definition.
The *esacpe velocities* are the same at the event horizon. The "surface"
gravitation is not.
David A. Smith
Yes--Sorry, 1/4GM, Eric was right... I shouldn't have had that
beer tonight... Only having a couple of beers a year... one does
a pretty good job on me. We were at a wedding tonight.
Sorry!
--Sam
Mazel Tov! Hope you hangover is better. And a good example for escape
velocity vs surface gravity is to compare Earth and Uranus. The surface
gravity on Uranus is actually a bit lower than Earth's but the escape
velocity is a lot higher.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 11:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:23:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:30:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Assuming that "surface" refers to event horizon, would not the
gravitational strength be the same for *all* Schwarzschild black holes?
No.
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface gravity than a 3
million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases, surface gravity
decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant escape, so
right at the horizon the gravitational strength should be the same,
by definition.
-Sam
Is that boundary at the same point for all black holes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
01 Sep 2007 11:37:32 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:23:02 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:30:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org>
wrote:
What is the g value of the strongest gravitational field discovered so far?
Is it greater than g~10^30 m/s^2 ?
What's the surface gravity of a 3 solar mass Schwarzschild black hole?
Assuming that "surface" refers to event horizon, would not the
gravitational strength be the same for *all* Schwarzschild black holes?
No.
A 3 solar mass black hole has a much stronger surface gravity than a 3
million solar mass black hole.
Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM. As mass increases, surface gravity
decreases.
But the event horizon is that boundary when light cant escape, so
right at the horizon the gravitational strength should be the same,
by definition.
-Sam
Is that boundary at the same point for all black holes?
You were right Eric--Surface gravity goes at 1/4GM... I'm fuzzed.
Off to bed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 07:57:08 AM |
|
|
Sam that giant galaxy M87 has a black hole that has a mass density of
2.6 billion solar masses. It is said stars near such a strong gravity
attraction increase their density 300 times higher than normal. Kind of
interesting Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BioFreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields |
02 Sep 2007 10:21:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, q-bit wrote:
What is the
Go give it to Ahmadinezhad:
http://www.shabnameh.org/images/ehsasBJm.jpg
--
"morgh ham tokhm mikoneh ham chalghuz."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gautam Majumdar" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields - where do you measure |
02 Sep 2007 12:25:41 PM |
|
|
Very interesting thread so far, in spite of some name calling :-( A couple
of questoins - where do you measure the surface gravity of a black hole ?
Is it at the event horizon ?
Uranus has been mentioned as an example of difference between surface
gravity and escape velocity. It is a gas giant with a rocky core. Most of
its mass is outside the core. Where do you measure its surface gravity
from ?
--
gautam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Strong gravitational fields - where do you measure |
03 Sep 2007 01:56:52 AM |
|
|
"Gautam Majumdar" <gmajumdar@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.02.17.26.07.130584.8919@freeuk.com...
Very interesting thread so far, in spite of some name calling :-( A couple
of questoins - where do you measure the surface gravity of a black hole ?
Is it at the event horizon ?
Uranus has been mentioned as an example of difference between surface
gravity and escape velocity. It is a gas giant with a rocky core. Most of
its mass is outside the core. Where do you measure its surface gravity
from ?
At the cloud tops, where the optical depth is of order unity. This is
likely to be the place from which escape is a relevant question for anything
from molecules to spacecraft.
In Newtonian mechanics, using spherical bodies of mass M and radius r to
keep the maths simple,
gravity at the surface is GM/r^2
escape velocity is sqrt(2GM/r)
Hence for very large planetary bodies the escape velocity can be huge, but
the surface gravity will not be nearly as large in proportion.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
