Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:54:24 -0600, Desertphile
<desertphile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:51:41 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:27:45 -0300, Nashton <nana@xxxxx> enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:34:31 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@xxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Boikat
<boikat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 12, 1:15 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:05 +0100, martin <use...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
spintronic wrote:
So i'm thinking about a rocket, and how 0 mass enters a black hole.
And then it occurs to me, (again, & agIn).
You's guys *DON'T KNOW* what you are talking about.
You cant even get a simple physics thought experiment correct,
Never mind a thought experiment, show the maths.
I doubt there are many people here that would understand the
math.
Speak for yourself. Relativistic theory is quite easy, mathematically
speaking. But you are correct, for the most part, most of the ignorant
evo-cheerleaders in this group know nothing more than the fact that they
believe in evolution.-
So, do you agree with spinny: A falling object loses mass because
it's converting some of it's mass into thrust?
Not thrust. A falling object loses mass because it is losing
potential energy. It's a very small amount of mass, but
nevertheless mass is energy, energy is mass.

No, a falling object in a gravity well gains energy in the form of
Kinetic Energy.

No, idiot. This is simply Newtonian stuff and you can't even handle it.
The energy is lost when the movement stops and is dissipated.

Correct, but while it moves it has kinetic energy.

Yes, and at rest it still has Energy of Position.

The object
has less mass/energy than when it started it's movement.

Oh good grief.

Nope. Wrong, as usual.

Naffoff and perhaps others may have failed to note that when an
object falls towards Earth, the object gains kinetic energy and
EARTH LOSES energy--- with the sum equal to exactly zero. Earth
will fall towards the object as the object falls towards Earth,
and, since Earth is rotating, Earth's rotation will slow down as
the object approaches. This is true even when the falling object
is a mote of dust, a planet, an asteroid, or a human jumping off a
bridge because he cannot live in the same world where ignorant
***-for-brains fucktards like Naffoff and spintronic exist.

What a complete and utter retard.

Says NashtOff looking in the mirror.

That's the first time Naffoff ever wrote anything correct in
talk.origins; he should gaze into his mirror more often.

I think we should have a whip-round to buy him a few more.

Spincronic was talking of an object of 1Kg mass falling into a black
hole. He had it start at an infinite distance (which was daft to start
with) and then claimed that by the time it reached the event horizon
of the Black Hole there would be no mass left - a totally ridiculous
claim.

If a mass is "an infinite distance" from another mass, presumably
the two masses would never meet.

Well exactly - but Spincronic didn't think of that. Add to that the
fact that gravity propagates at the speed of light, so for two objects
to inter-react then they must be closer than the age of the universe,
but of course Spincronic didn't think of that either.

Ignoring the expansion of the universe, the 1Kg mass doesn't
merely fall into the black hole: the black hole also falls into
the 1Kg mass.

Correct.

Once in the black hole, the 1Kg mass still has 1Kg of mass unless
it has reached relativistic speed in relation to the black hole.

What I don't understand (among an infinite other subjects I also
do not understand) is: if the 1,000 gram mass approaches the speed
of light it will gain mass,

Correct.

and the black hole must therefore lose
mass and energy; how does that mass and energy escape the black
hole to be imparted on the 1Kg mass?

Gravity.

I assume if the black hole is
rotating, its angular momentum would decrease: what if the black
hole lacks angular momentum?

Such a BH is possible, in theory, but it is a most unlikely beast.

MIT's channel on YouTube has four videos on the subject, but I did
not understand what the professors said.

Must have a look sometime.

--
Bob.

.

Loading