Is Atheism exist is just to "HATE" religion?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Nyarlathotep: "Gravitational potential energy is negative."
Really? I'd love to see that calculation.
hand waving argument:
Consider a collapsing shell of matter. It has gravitational field lines outside the shell, but none inside the shell. The collapse can be used to extract energy (by say having it pull a rope to turn a generator, to produce electricity to charge your cell phone). Now redraw the field lines. You will find that every field line that existed before the collapse, still exists. There is still no field lines inside the shell. However, the region of space where the shell collapsed through will now have field lines where there were none before. So the net effect of this event was to produce energy (charged cell phone battery), and to produce extra gravitational field. If we insist that the conservation of energy is true, then those two things better have opposite signs. Historically we say a charged battery has positive energy and therefore the field l̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ must have negative.
Yes indeed, the very concept I was alluding to without fully understanding it. The idea has been used in some theoretical wormhole propagation scenarios that still have my head spinning. I'm trying to imagine your field lines but the example leaves me hard pressed to understand the concept. An object's gravity is directly proportional to its mass so if you spread out the mass (creating this 'shell') that then 'falls' in on itself how is this energy different to the energy transferred when I drop a can of beans on my toe?
Spreading an object out consumes energy, and destroys field lines. Collapsing an object creates energy and creates field lines. This sounds like a violation of the conservation of energy, but you'll notice if the field lines represent negative energy then everything is ok. I tried to draw a picture:
At the bottom we have the 'un-collapsed shell', at the top we have the collapsed shell. You will notice that new field lines are created in the region the shell collapsed through.
The same thing goes for the can of beans. When the can of bean is separated from the Earth, energy seems to be lost and field strength is reduced. When the can returns to the Earth, energy seems to be created and field strength is increased. If you want energy to be conserved then the energy in the field must has the opposite sign compared to the energy released when the can falls on your foot.
None of this is new or cutting edge, been known for at least 300 years (although just because it is old, does not mean it is easy!). About the same length of time it has been known that angular momentum is conserved (but don't tell Jeff that, http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/scientific-advancement...).
No, I think the only new concept was that somehow this exists in empty space, I assume because of it effectively not being empty but that was my two-bits. I suppose I'm confusing energy with a force equation. A negative force is just an opposing force to another one but there isn't actually a force that is negative. Just like there isn't such a thing as "cold", it's just lack of heat. Which gears me to believe that a negative energy is nothing more than one that is yet to be created. The actual creation of the energy would still require some sort of work, like pushing my can of beans past the edge of the shelf, because it doesn't have a negative energy holding it up there.
Kataclismic - " the only new concept was that somehow this exists in empty space"
That also isn't new:
Newton - "That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance t̲h̲r̲o̲'̲ ̲a̲ ̲V̲a̲c̲u̲u̲m̲,̲ ̲w̲i̲t̲h̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲M̲e̲d̲i̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲e̲l̲s̲e̲, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers."
Kataclismic - "A negative force is just an opposing force to another one but there isn't actually a force that is negative."
That is what negative means in 1 dimension. If you live in one dimension and you call velocity in one direction positive, velocity in the other direction has to be negative for there to be any consistency. Arguing that that velocity isn't really negative is like arguing that debts are not really negative. Let's say you start with $0. Then you borrow $5 from your friend. Now if we want to record you financial status accurately we record your assets (+$5 because you got $5 in your pocket) and your liabilities (-$5 because you owe your friend $5) for a total of $0. If you were to then insist that your debt was not really negative, you'd come to the conclusion that you have $10, which is obviously madness. You might argue that this is just a bookkeeping device and you'd be right! But the same goes for physics: you are using numbers to represent the real world, and to do an accurate job, some of these numbers are going to have to be negative.
Introducing the logic of a bookkeeping method in order to claim my madness doesn't actually describe a negative energy. I've lost all appetite for arguing.
Well that is what state variables are, bookkeeping. You record the information about a system at time 1 (book keeping), then apply an evolution law to evolve the system through t amount of time (math), and then your 'evolved books' will reflect the resulting state (make a prediction about the system at time 2). That is how physics is done. Anything else is just stamp collections (to paraphrase Rutherford).
If you loan me five dollars and you want that money back you will ask me to sign an I.O.U. This will be evidence when you take me to court that I actually owe you five dollars. You can't go to court and say "I have five dollars less (-$5) than I had last week so Kataclismic owes me this money", because the judge won't accept that negative number as evidence that you gave it to me. I don't accept your negative numbers as negative energy until you give me some evidence that there is an energy that somehow works opposite to a positive energy in the first place. This shouldn't be too difficult, otherwise my original argument stands that it is nothing more than a contradictory energy of a positive nature that explains the negative polarity and works to balance the system.
Kataclismic- "I don't accept your negative numbers as negative energy"
I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.
Kataclismic- "until you give me some evidence that there is an energy that somehow works opposite to a positive energy in the first place".
I already linked you an article about it, and drew you a diagram showing exactly what you are asking for, again I can't make you drink water you don't want. I probably need to have my head examined but I'll try once more to get you to drink:
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ - "This energy, however, is exactly balanced by t̲h̲e̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲ of everything pulling on everything else."
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/- "You can easily see that gravity is associated with n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲ as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero."
Steven Hawking, The Theory of Everything - "Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, t̲h̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲i̲e̲l̲d̲ ̲h̲a̲s̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲."
Alan Guth, MIT course#8.286, Lecture 1 - "There are things that have n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲i̲e̲s̲. And in particular, t̲h̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲i̲e̲l̲d̲ ̲h̲a̲s̲ ̲a̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲. This statement by the way is true both in Newtonian physics and in general relativity."
Alan Guth, MIT course#8.286, Lecture 1 - "The energy density of a Newtonian g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲i̲e̲l̲d̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲. And the same is true in general relativity in a more subtle way."
Alan Guth, MIT course#8.286, Lecture 1 - "Schematically, the picture is that if one thinks about the total energy of the universe, it consists of a huge positive amount in the form of matter and radiation-- the stuff that we see, the stuff that we normally identify the energy of-- but there's also a huge n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲a̲m̲o̲u̲n̲t̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲i̲e̲l̲d̲ that fills the universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy - "According to classical mechanics, between two or more masses (or other forms of energy–momentum) a gravitational potential energy exists. Conservation of energy requires that this g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲f̲i̲e̲l̲d̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲a̲l̲w̲a̲y̲s̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲."
http://ibphysicsstuff.wikidot.com/gravitation - "Note: That the work done is negative. This is because the force and displacement are in opposite directions. This also makes g̲r̲a̲v̲i̲t̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲p̲o̲t̲e̲n̲t̲i̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲n̲e̲r̲g̲y̲ ̲n̲e̲g̲a̲t̲i̲v̲e̲."
If this isn't enough for you, perhaps you could save us a lot of time in the future and not ask for things you don't really want.
I appreciate your conversation and your efforts Nyarlathotep. It seems to be a failure on my part to grasp the fundamental concept of negative energy, even to me. I used to think that anti-matter was a Gene Roddenberry invention but this substance actually exists too, if only for an instant in a laboratory.
The idea that the culmination of mass-energy is balanced by a negative gravity-energy is somewhat akin to the old navigational theory that there must be a mass of land in the southern hemisphere equal to the continents in the northern hemisphere to balance out the planet, but I'll let that go and say that maybe it makes sense.
The only argument I'm left with is that the law of conservation of energy (which is actually less a law, more an observation) requires the value to be negative in order to balance the system of equations that has already been defined. This may be the actual definition of the 'negative energy' you are referring to but I still struggle to accept it. I admit it may not be much of an argument but I'll leave it there.
Kataclismic - "The only argument I'm left with is that the law of conservation of energy (which is actually less a law, more an observation) requires the value to be negative in order to balance the system of equations that has already been defined. This may be the actual definition of the 'negative energy' you are referring to but I still struggle to accept it"
That is more or less right. A simpler example would just be the electron and proton. Does an electron really have a 'negative' electrical charge? In a way no. The electron has the opposite charge of the proton. If by convention you say the proton has a positive charge, then you will be forced to say the electron has a negative charge (this is the convention we use). However, you could redo all of chemistry/electromagnetism of the last 300 years starting with electrons have a positive charge (and being forced to say that protons has a negative charge) and everything would still work (so long as you made this bookkeeping change across the board). In some ways our convention of electric charge is kind of backwards, but sadly it is too late now and we are stuck with the bookkeeping notation of protons having a positive charge (funny cartoon about it - https://xkcd.com/567/).
Jeff - 'http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013...'
Check out equation 9 vs 24. He claims that his equation predicts the mass of the proton to within 4% of the accepted measured value, but he has to cheat and put in a fudge factor of 2 to make it do so, so his real prediction is off by more than 50%. This is what numerologists do, they combine numbers in weird ways, then fudge in unexplained multipliers to make it get close to their goal.
My friend was born on 04-01-1970. Lets see 1970 - 31(days in Jan) - 27(days in Feb) - 31(days in Mar) - 1 = 2*940. Oh look 940 is within 4% of 911. Inside job, inside job!
Lesson: When you are willing to cheat, you can make anything into anything---and since you know the target number in advance---it no different than reinterpreting vague prophecy to fit current events. Why did he choose a 2 instead of a 6 or 165 as his fudge factor? Because he knew the target result he wanted...
2, because there are two contiguous Schwarzschild protons inside the proton spinning at nearly the speed of light, that doubles the mass.
You need to read the previous paper that theorized that the proton is smaller then what it was thought at the time.
In 2013 this paper was proven more accurate the the previous standard model for the size of the proton, some 3 years later.
Jeff Vella Leone - "2, because there are two contiguous Schwarzschild protons inside the proton spinning at nearly the speed of light, that doubles the mass. "
Why not 7, or 75. Oh I know: because 2 works better. Again, anyone can make any formula they want that will give any result they want, if they know the result ahead of time. The hard part is doing it logically, which he has not done.
The model appears to predict that a pair of two protons will form a stable nucleus, orbiting each other at a speed close to that of light in vacuum. However, isn't a diproton an extremely unstable isotope of helium, which decays in less than a billionth of a second? Also, isn't Nassim Haramein, that weirdo that claimed that NASA is covering up data of UFO's the size of the Earth caught on video entering the sun so that aliens can use the sun's singularity at it's core for space travel? Is this the same Nassim Haramein that said small alien spaceships zip into our volcanoes to use the Earth's singularity for wormhole based travel?
Yeah, I think you are going to have to show me some peer reviewed journals that published this before I consider it, as it didn't even have a .edu for shits sake...
"Nassim Haramein, that weirdo that claimed that NASA is covering up data of UFO's the size of the Earth caught on video entering the sun so that aliens can use the sun's singularity at it's core for space travel? Is this the same Nassim Haramein that said small alien spaceships zip into our volcanoes to use the Earth's singularity for wormhole based travel?"
Can your bias move past genetic fallacies and analyze the formulas for what they are instead of who wrote them?
He did predict a more accurate proton size 3 years before everyone else, against what everyone said and got it right against all odds, because that is what the formulas gave him.
He had the balls to publish the paper with those results even if the standard model showed and current tests showed his theory was wrong.
3 years later it was shown through better tests that the standard model had the wrong size and Nassim was right.
This is not the actions of a lunatic, you don't go to these lengths if you do not know what you are talking about.
To this day his formulas are uncontested and they do provide a better model to predict the sizes of all things in the universe with better precision.
But I do not expect you to consider it at all.
I do not think you are mentally ready for such a task anyway.
Just wanted to reply to an idiot who did not even know that the paper DETAILS are written on the assumption that whoever is reading it knew what a Schwarzschild proton was.
I gave this paper to show the scaling law originally, if you want more details, have the maturity and the decency to at least read the paper that this one builds on before sprouting nonsense.
(called argument of ignorance)
"Why not 7, or 75. Oh I know: because 2 works better."
Nassim always considered the 2 Schwarzschild protons(not 7 or 25) before making this paper, proven in the previous paper idiot.
Is there a limit to your stupidity?
Travis Hedglin at least got that far.
According to his paper, the calculation (#24) cited is his attempt to calculate the mass of 1 proton. Furthermore he is comparing it to the accepted mass of a single proton. Your suggestion he is talking about 2 protons is odd to say the least, unless: he/you are saying 1 proton consists of 2 protons. In which case he/you got some REALLY big problems. So tell us again, where did that 2 come from? It looks like it came out of thin air to me...
Read it with less wishfull thinking(to find a flaw) and maybe you will get it:
8 is the actual mass of the Schwarzschild proton
24 ="where is the holographic derivation of the mass of the proton. The result is a close
approximation to the measured CODATA value for the proton mass"
Basically 24 is the current measured CODATA value,
Nassim is just showing that the current value can be derived from the 2 Schwarzschild Protons and also eliminating the strong force and use just gravity.
= the current value is just a collection, not just one but 2 spinning at the nearly the speed of light which he made an entire paper on.
It was assumed that it is just 1 thing.(spinning at nearly the speed of light makes it look like 1 thing)
He is showing another option that gives better and more precise results with a formula that can be applied to all the scale from infinity big to infinity small.
To make it more of a clear picture
Nassim is claiming that the Schwarzschild proton is a mini black hole and when you have 2 of them together it makes up the standard proton, it generates the exact amount of force needed to account for the strong force with just gravity of those 2 black holes spinning at nearly the speed of light.
But also gives the right mass, the right radius, etc...to fit with the ratio of the rest of the things in the universe.
He built the scaling law on it to show this relationship.
It is a truly fascinating concept.
All he did was add spin to Einstein field equation and it generated torque, this led to his discovery that the his new spin included formula matched with everything except with the standard proton model and thus he published a paper saying that everybody got the wrong size of the proton because his formula says otherwise.(got a ton of ridicule for it).
With 2 of them the current results were still way off the mark, 3 years later he was proven to have a more accurate result with 2 of them.
So that puts us back to the original question, why 2, not 75?
Jeff Vella Leone - "spinning at the nearly the speed of light"
Jeff Vella Leone - "black holes spinning at nearly the speed of light"
That is madness, dimensionally ridiculous.
editted to add:
Also if he using something other than a standard proton, why is he using the charge radius of a standard proton in #22 for it? This paper is a hot mess...
There is a fine line between madness and genius.
There were many that said the same thing about all the geniuses of human history.
"So that puts us back to the original question, why 2, not 75?"
Jesus....., 2 because because it generates the right mass,radius, etc.... to fit his scaling law.
It is just what the formula gives as a result. You just need 2 to generate that level of attraction to hold the nucleus together(since they are all positive) to remove the strong force.(which is a force never ever accounted for, it was invented as a patch to the standard model)
He is being scientific about it.
He is using a force that we know about (gravity), instead of inventing a new force out of thin air.(strong force)
Jeff Vella Leone - "Jesus....., 2 because because it generates the right mass,radius, etc.... to fit his scaling law."
I agree with you 100% here. He is using 2 because it works... When it doesn't work he doesn't use it.
Jeff Vella Leone - "He is being scientific about it."
He already knows the answer, so he fudges in numbers until it works; then uses that is called numerology.
I'll leave you with a quote from Feynman:
"Every once in a while someone comes out and they find out that if they combine pi's and e's a̲n̲d̲ ̲2̲'̲s̲ and 5's with the right powers and square roots that you can make that number.It seems to be a fact that's not fully appreciated by people that play with arithmetic — that you'd be surprised how many numbers you can make by playing with pi's a̲n̲d̲ ̲2̲'̲s̲ and 5's and so on — a̲n̲d̲ ̲i̲f̲ ̲y̲o̲u̲ ̲h̲a̲v̲e̲n̲'̲t̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲t̲h̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲g̲u̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲y̲o̲u̲ ̲e̲x̲c̲e̲p̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲a̲n̲s̲w̲e̲r̲,̲ ̲y̲o̲u̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲a̲l̲w̲a̲y̲s̲ ̲m̲a̲k̲e̲ ̲i̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲ even to several decimal places by a suitable jiggling about. It's surprising how close you can make an arbitrary number by playing around with nice numbers like pi and e. ...and therefore throughout the history of physics, there — paper after paper of people who have noticed that certain specific combinations give answers which are very close in several decimal places to experiment ... — so it doesn't mean anything. "
"I agree with you 100% here. He is using 2 because it works... When it doesn't work he doesn't use it."
Yes that is how science works, you keep experimenting until it works.
"He already knows the answer, so he fudges in numbers until it works; then uses that is called numerology."
If you mean he knows the answer because HIS formula gives that answer then yes.
He made a formula and tested the formula, it works on all things, universe, galaxies, suns, planets, atoms but not on the proton.
So he scientifically analyzed why it did not work on the proton, and realized that there is an invented force, called Strong force.
Saw that the scale still was off by nearly twice the amount and made a bunch of tests to see why that is.
He found out that having 2 black holes interlocked and spinning at the speed of light generates exactly what his formula is predicting.
Then a proton might as well be a collection of 2 black holes.
(no evidence of the contrary)
And it did not fit the formula because it was not 1 thing.
But having the exact mass needed, exact radius, and exact gravity leaves no room for doubt that he is onto something.
Very simple solution for someone who knows what he is doing.
Science is filled with marvels and exceptions like these, it always happened and it will continue to happen.
It is called trial and error to learn the truth.
No one gets it right on first try every time.
"so he fudges in numbers until it works"
you cannot fudge these Numbers, since we are taking about very very very small things. A slight change makes the numbers not match up for something for sure.
+ he openly declared that everybody got the wrong size of the proton, why not fudge the numbers then instead of getting ridiculed for 3 years?
the truth is that his formula works, it works so well that it helps him to understand some bad science like:
Strong force invention
actual size of the proton 3 years before everyone else
Now make your peace, your attempt at ridicule failed.
You seemed to have hinted several times that there is no such thing as the strong force. Is that correct? Will you go on record saying that explicitly?
Can your bias move past genetic fallacies and analyze the formulas for what they are instead of who wrote them?"
I did, I notice you didn't even address diprotons, which does actually fuck up his paper. Hell, anyone with even a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that classical "orbits" do not apply at the scales addressed in this paper.
"He did predict a more accurate proton size 3 years before everyone else, against what everyone said and got it right against all odds, because that is what the formulas gave him."
Citation needed. Haramein seems to baldly assert the radius of a proton is 1.32fm. That is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius! So no, this does not appear to be the case, at all.
"He had the balls to publish the paper with those results even if the standard model showed and current tests showed his theory was wrong."
So what? That doesn't take balls. There are hundreds of amateur physicists, like Haramein, who are trying very hard to bend physics to make their own particular brand of woo fit. This isn't new, not at all, and has led to a ton of misleading and downright incorrect unscientific "Theories" populating the internet.
"3 years later it was shown through better tests that the standard model had the wrong size and Nassim was right."
"This is not the actions of a lunatic, you don't go to these lengths if you do not know what you are talking about."
So, do you stand by this assertion, are you stating that Christian scientists that go to GREAT LENGTHS must know what they are talking about? This is the same kind of reasoning people us to assert that the new testament MUST be true, because the apostles wouldn't have "died for a lie". You should have aborted this stillbirth of a thought long before it made it onto my screen.
"To this day his formulas are uncontested and they do provide a better model to predict the sizes of all things in the universe with better precision."
His formulas are not "uncontested" there are actually a number of physicists contesting them online. Haramein claims the Schwarzschild proton is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm, or 885 million metric tons. Because of severely distorted spacetime in the vicinity of the event horizon of such a tiny black hole gives rise to a correspondingly huge amount of pair-production, I.E. Hawking Radiation, if we use M = 8.85 x 10^11 kg (the other values are standard physical constants) this gives 4.55 x 10^8 W.
The laws of thermodynamics cleary imply that proton-sized black hole would have a temperature of around 139 billion degrees Celsius, which is thousands of times hotter than the core of a star, and not far off the core temperature at the height of a supernova.
"But I do not expect you to consider it at all."
Of course not, you just post here for the lulz, you don't expect anyone to read your posts.
"I do not think you are mentally ready for such a task anyway."
Says the primate who can't deal with a single one of my problems with this inane mental dotard of an idea.
"Just wanted to reply to an idiot who did not even know that the paper DETAILS are written on the assumption that whoever is reading it knew what a Schwarzschild proton was."
I do, and it was reflected in the statement about the diproton. I was even being generous by stating billionths. between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second. Why? Because the theory of General Relativity tells us that any two black holes orbiting each other must lose orbital energy by emitting gravitational waves and fall in towards each other, merging into a single black hole at the moment that their event horizons touch. This can be simply contradicted by approach velocity:
dr/dt=-64/5 X G³/c⁵ X (m₁m₂)(m₁+m₂)/r³
So, let's review:
Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tons
From a single actual proton: none
From a single Schwarzschild proton: 455 million Watts (enough to supply electricity to 60,000 US homes)
Stability of interaction between protons?
Between actual protons in a stable nucleus: indefinitely
Between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons: the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second.
What happens when you look inside a proton?
In an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear.
In a Schwarzschild proton: there is supposedly an event horizon of 1.32fm radius according to the paper, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
People should go to college, not look up physics online and hope they find a credible source, or someone might shovel bullshit into their head.
People should go to college, not look up physics online and hope they find a credible source, or someone might shovel bullshit into their head."
Conclusion, your are too biased to make a proper analysis of the paper.
Either misinterpret or outright lack knowledge on what you are talking about.
As I said, I do not give a dam about what you believe.
You showed me you have no interest in the subject but just want to waste my time with provocative attacks on what I said to get me to answer.
I am not going to be bothered answering all the stupid, uneducated question everyone comes up with.
Especially when someone is blinded by with prejudice like you.
I have better things to do, then trying to reason with idiots.
End of discussion.
"Conclusion, your are too biased to make a proper analysis of the paper."
Prove it, I gave a rather comprehensive analysis of the numerous problems in this paper. You didn't address a single one of those objective problems. Take the example of the temperature of his black hole proton emitting enough Hawking radiation to incinerate the planet, and even material in the sun. You can't even begin to address THAT problem. You know very little, if anything, about physics; and this has made that painfully apparent to everyone here.
Travis Hedglin - "Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tons"
What is 36 (or so) orders of magnitude among friends?
The difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.
Obsession with religion isn't sprung from hatred... It's sprung from religion being crammed down our throats everywhere we go. And from the desire to wean humanity from the poison teat of delusion and snake-oil.
Buddha himself said: "Do not believe any ancient religious texts that people attempt to sway you with. They are written by men and do not involve anything divine."
I don't hate religion, but it absolutely disgusts me. Just as Bevis and Butthead, MTV and idiotic cookie-cutter music themes disgust me.
It's a trend of crap that deceives people into accepting their own conditions. Just as Christianity tells poor people to be happy with their position, that they'll be rewarded richly in the 'afterlife' for giving up Earthly comforts.
Buddhism I respect, it is a good set of teachings, and contradictory to Christian teachings, Buddhism promotes not attaching one's self to property because happiness should not be tied to belongings. And Buddhists don't drive Mercedes cars and promote other people's poverty!