Re: Strong gravitational fields

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 06:49:08 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:28:32 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:52:13 +0200, "q-bit" <johnsm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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, ***.

Stop pretending you know more about physics than myself or anyone else
on this newsgroup. Your high school physics course /is not good
enough/.


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.

The observational fact that Newtonian gravitation is not correct has
been known since the 1850s.

Newton's laws are most certainly not valid for everything. Spend less
time talking and more time reading, and you might learn something.


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.

Acceleration is the time derivative ... oh yea you don't know
calculus.

Units:

acceleration = [L/T^2]
velocity = [L/T]

They are not the same thing. Apparently you were not taught units in
high school physics. You were also apparently not taught that there is
more to physics than Newtonian kinematics.


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!

Really? Let's see if you can pass this short little test. Hell, I
wonder if you can answer any of these questions.

What is this quantity, then?

lim h--> 0 [u(x+h,y) - u(x,y)] / h

Give me one nonzero function that satisfies this differential
equation:

df/dx = f(x)
f(0) = 1

What function is represented by this power series expansion?

1 + x + x^2 / 2 + x^3 / 3! + x^4 / 4! + ....

For alternative credit, explain what a power series expansion is if
you are unable to identify this *simple* function. Hint: It is the
same function as for the previous question.

Evaluate these simple problems:

lim x--> 0 sin(x) / x

int(D(x)dx,x=-\infty...\infty) where D(x) is the Dirac delta function.

int(x^3 dx, x=-1,1)

d/dx * [f(x) / g(x)]

d/dx * [x^n] where n is any number

Giving the answer is unacceptable - you have to prove the answer.

If you can't answer all of these, then why should anyone ever listen
to you?

Not necessarily your braindamaged GR calculus, but my calculus
gives at least correct results.

You don't even know what you are talking about. There is no such thing
as "GR calculus".


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?

Good for you, you can read. Now demonstrate that you can read for
comprehension by explaining why what you have cited is relevant to
this discussion in any way whatsoever.
.

Quantcast