From: "Little@man.Ball" <suck@ra.mentos>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Why? CO2 Doesn't Cause Warming
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:04:03 -0600
Organization: \@multiple personality phil hendry mind fuck@/
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:49:10 -0700
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2024-04-25 15:47, Little@man.Ball wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:55:21 -0700
> > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> > =20
> >> On 2024-04-25 13:01, Little@man.Ball wrote: =20
> >>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:41:41 -0700
> >>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> >>> =20
> >>>> The guy who wrote that knows nothing:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Energy does not migrate on and on. Kinetic energy (motion) is
> >>>> continuously destroyed in a gravitational field.'
> >>>>
> >>>> That statement is completely false.
> >>>>
> >>>> Energy is NEVER destroyed. =20
> >>>
> >>> Yes, in some cases. =20
> >>
> >> Nope. In no cases as all.
> >> =20
> >>> We can convert kinetic energy to potential anergy
> >>> thus =E2=80=9Cdestroying=E2=80=9D all of the kinetic energy. =20
> >>
> >> So NOT destroying.
> >> =20
> >>> One simple example is to
> >>> throw a ball on the moon straight up. Lacking air resistance, when
> >>> the ball reach its peak height it has zero kinetic energy. =20
> >>
> >> But it has additional potential energy in precisely the same
> >> amount. =20
> >=20
> > Nope.
> >=20
> > Not in space.
> >=20
> > It is nulled. =20
>=20
> No. It is not.
Yes it is.
>=20
> > =20
> >> =20
> >>> A more difficult
> >>> experiment is on earth o send a moving object uphill with zero
> >>> friction and set the slope such that it becomes level at the top
> >>> and the object reaches a complete halt. =20
> >>
> >> And it makes not difference.
> >>
> >> The energy in either scenario is not destroyed, but rather
> >> converted from one form to another.
> >> =20
> > Or nulled =3D destroyed.
> >=20
> > cope. =20
>=20
> Nope.
>=20
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy>
Wiki-pooh-dia?
It is to laugh.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355680683_ENERGY_CAN_BE_CREATED_AS=
_WELL_AS_DESTROYED
https://public.nrao.edu/ask/do-black-holes-transform-or-destroy-matter/
Question:
If matter is conserved, and black holes destroy atoms and all other forms o=
f matter, energy, and particles I can conceive of, then does that mean that=
black holes are transforming matter, or is matter destroyed? And if the ma=
tter does transform into another state or such, what form of matter or ener=
gy does it take within the black hole?
-- Schuylar
Answer:
I believe that your question has already been answered in response to a
blog post asking where the matter that a black hole consumes goes. It
is believed that much of the matter that enters a black hole is
converted to energy or absorbed by the singularity at the center of the
black hole.
Absorbed =3D destroyed.