Gravity and black holes
in [Math]
|
Prev: full solution manual for: Orbital Mechanics: For Engineering Students by Howard Curtis 2nd edition (includes matlab scripts)
Next: Row of urinals puzzle
From: glird on 26 Jan 2010 16:01 On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > xxein: Now how does mass attract? Of itself, a mass ("quantity of matter") doesn't attract anything. xxein: A mass cannot exist as a closed system. In that there is no place in the universe where a "closed system" exists, it is true that a mass does not exist as a closed system. xxein: How about our Sun? It gives off tremendous radiation energy. But it still attracts. Why? Because the Sun is a matter-unit, thus -- as ALL matter units do -- has a density gradient surrounding it. That grad d penetrates all embedded bodies. It sums with their own density gradients. Therefore a net gradient arises INSIDE of each atom in every embedded object. This net grad d is stronger on the side closest to the matter-unit's nucleus, which in this case is the Sun. Because matter resists compression increasingly stronger as its density increases, the resistance to an atom's own internally circulating wave systems is stronger on the denser side. That's WHY a "gravitational FORCE" arises inside of every atom of any object embedded in, thus part of the density gradient ("gravitational FIELD") of the parent unit. glird
From: Uncle Al on 26 Jan 2010 19:02 glird wrote: > > On Jan 25, 9:37 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > xxein: Now how does mass attract? > > Of itself, a mass ("quantity of matter") doesn't attract anything. > > xxein: A mass cannot exist as a closed system. > > In that there is no place in the universe where a "closed system" > exists, it is true that a mass does not exist as a closed system. > > xxein: How about our Sun? It gives off tremendous radiation energy. > But it still attracts. Why? > > Because the Sun is a matter-unit, thus -- as ALL matter units do -- > has a density gradient surrounding it. That grad d penetrates all > embedded bodies. It sums with their own density gradients. Therefore a > net gradient arises INSIDE of each atom in every embedded object. This > net grad d is stronger on the side closest to the matter-unit's > nucleus, which in this case is the Sun. > Because matter resists compression increasingly stronger as its > density increases, the resistance to an atom's own internally > circulating wave systems is stronger on the denser side. That's WHY a > "gravitational FORCE" arises inside of every atom of any object > embedded in, thus part of the density gradient ("gravitational FIELD") idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: spudnik on 26 Jan 2010 23:32 decimals places are not going to do, if you didn't get what I wrote. bascailly, M&M did not get any null or "nil" result, and this has been amply recalibrated -- see Cahill's (Surfer's [*]) fig.3, I think e.g. -- over time > be NO interference! That is WHY M-M had nil (not null) results. All > of the Lorentz transformation nonsense was never needed! * if you look at his other paper's, he tries to be all things to all people. thus: well, Nik Tes researched it!... let's hit the hight points: a) Michelson and Morely did not get a "null," nor did his successors; b) Pascal discovered the vacuum, but didn't know about partial-pressures of mercury in the coolumn or of gasses in the mercury e.g.; c) space-time is phase-space, period, and is almost always an obfuscation -- but Minkowski died, before he could qualify any of his lagubrious slogans. > Vacuum; Space-time; Aether. thus: waht is a knotted polygon? let me guess; if the edges are links with universal joints between them, then a hexagon can be "knotted" in the conventional sense (of not being the unknot or circle). thus: if you tell you-know-who about -1 being prime, we'll have to kill you, then de-finite-ly ourselves, out of boredom! --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 26 Jan 2010 23:39 there is nothing at all wrong with the Lorentz transforms, if you really consider that light is a limit on the internal motions of electrons in an atom, that is moving at high speed. in deed, what phenomenon requires speed over that of light, other than science fictionalizing? thus: decimals places are not going to do, if you didn't get what I wrote. bascailly, M&M did not get any null or "nil" result, and this has been amply recalibrated -- see Cahill's (Surfer's [*]) fig.3, I think e.g. -- over the years since the 1880s, viz D.C.Miller. * if you look at his other paper's, he tries to be all things to all people -- or, at least, two people, each reading one of two papers, that I peruzed! thus: well, Nik Tes researched it!... let's hit the hight points: a) Michelson and Morely did not get a "null," nor did his successors; b) Pascal discovered the vacuum, but didn't know about partial-pressures of mercury in the coolumn or of gasses in the mercury e.g.; c) space-time is phase-space, period, and is almost always an obfuscation -- but Minkowski died, before he could qualify any of his lagubrious slogans. > Vacuum; Space-time; Aether. thus: what is a knotted polygon? let me guess; if the edges are links with universal joints between them, then a hexagon can be "knotted" in the conventional sense (of not being the unknot or circle). thus: if you tell you-know-who about -1 being prime, we'll have to kill you, then de-finite-ly ourselves, out of boredom! --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 26 Jan 2010 23:43
your "shop talk" seems to lack specificity, but if you could describe adiabatic processes, then I'd thank you. > We don't know all about adiabatics except for recognizing certain > thresholds that we can measure and put to some math. We don't really > know the trigger mechanism. But it's there. It is hidden in the > physic we DON'T know. thus: there is nothing at all wrong with the Lorentz transforms, if you really consider that light is a limit on the internal motions of electrons in an atom, that is moving at high speed. in deed, what phenomenon requires speed over that of light, other than science fictionalizing? thus: decimals places are not going to do, if you didn't get what I wrote. bascailly, M&M did not get any null or "nil" result, and this has been amply recalibrated -- see Cahill's (Surfer's [*]) fig.3, I think e.g. -- over the years since the 1880s, viz D.C.Miller. * if you look at his other paper's, he tries to be all things to all people -- or, at least, two people, each reading one of two papers, that I peruzed! thus: well, Nik Tes researched it!... let's hit the hight points: a) Michelson and Morely did not get a "null," nor did his successors, D.C.Miller e.g.; b) Pascal discovered the vacuum, but didn't know about partial-pressures of mercury in the "plenum" of the column or of gasses in the mercury e.g.; c) space-time is phase-space, period, and is almost always an obfuscation -- but Minkowski died, before he could qualify any of his lagubrious slogans. > Vacuum; Space-time; Aether. thus: what is a knotted polygon? let me guess; if the edges are links with universal joints between them, then a hexagon can be "knotted" in the conventional sense (of not being the unknot or circle). thus: if you tell you-know-who about -1 being prime, we'll have to kill you, then de-finite-ly ourselves, out of boredom! --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com |