The center of gravity
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 19:00 On Apr 29, 3:19 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 9:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 7:36 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2010 7:01 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:48 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/26/2010 5:31 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > >>> On Apr 26, 2:58 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On 4/26/2010 1:44 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Apr 26, 11:35 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 4/26/2010 1:17 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 10:06 am, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 6:18 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> So science is independant of Mind? Where then did it come from? > > > >>>>>>>>> Where did life come from? > > > > >>>>>>>> What's beyond the causal horizon? > > > > >>>>>>> There is no such thing. There is hypersphere form of a closed > > > >>>>>>> universe. > > > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > >>>>>> That, fool, is a model, it isn't necessarily the reality. There are > > > >>>>>> people who suggest the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron. > > > > >>>>>> <http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/041005_univsh...> > > > > >>>>> A closed universe and a round higher dimension of space is the > > > >>>>> reality. > > > > >>>> If it is that would be the only, repeat ONLY, sphere that > > > >>>> exists anywhere. There are no natural circles or spheres > > > >>>> in the universe.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >>> Gravity is round. There are no wrinkles in time. > > > > >>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > >> You make these statements without any foundation in fact. You > > > >> "teach like a religious preacher."- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > Einstein's space curve is closed and round. > > > > The strength of gravity is round. > > > > Time shells slowed by it are round. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Religion, not science.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Science will find that gravity's curve is a round closed curve > > instead of parabolic. Gravity curve is three dimensional which makes > > it a sphere curve of geometry that orginates at its center and radiats > > outward till the end of gravity's range. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > So what is the "End of gravity's range", Mitchy-poo.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Get it together don. Every force drops to zero. The electric and strong are only bond forces in the atom and do not extend further. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 29 Apr 2010 20:32 On Apr 29, 6:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 3:19 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 9:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 7:36 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4/26/2010 7:01 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 4:48 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >> On 4/26/2010 5:31 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >>> On Apr 26, 2:58 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >>>> On 4/26/2010 1:44 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On Apr 26, 11:35 am, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> On 4/26/2010 1:17 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> On Apr 26, 10:06 am, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 6:18 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> So science is independant of Mind? Where then did it come from? > > > > >>>>>>>>> Where did life come from? > > > > > >>>>>>>> What's beyond the causal horizon? > > > > > >>>>>>> There is no such thing. There is hypersphere form of a closed > > > > >>>>>>> universe. > > > > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > >>>>>> That, fool, is a model, it isn't necessarily the reality. There are > > > > >>>>>> people who suggest the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron. > > > > > >>>>>> <http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/041005_univsh...> > > > > > >>>>> A closed universe and a round higher dimension of space is the > > > > >>>>> reality. > > > > > >>>> If it is that would be the only, repeat ONLY, sphere that > > > > >>>> exists anywhere. There are no natural circles or spheres > > > > >>>> in the universe.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > > > > >>> Gravity is round. There are no wrinkles in time. > > > > > >>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > >> You make these statements without any foundation in fact. You > > > > >> "teach like a religious preacher."- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Einstein's space curve is closed and round. > > > > > The strength of gravity is round. > > > > > Time shells slowed by it are round. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Religion, not science.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Science will find that gravity's curve is a round closed curve > > > instead of parabolic. Gravity curve is three dimensional which makes > > > it a sphere curve of geometry that orginates at its center and radiats > > > outward till the end of gravity's range. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > So what is the "End of gravity's range", Mitchy-poo > Get it together don. Every force drops to zero. The electric and > strong are only bond forces in the atom and do not extend further. > The gravitational field of every object in the Universe extends to that object's cosmological event horizon, weakened, yes, but present. Your move. Isn't this fun, Burt? Better than chess.
From: purple on 29 Apr 2010 20:51 On 4/29/2010 7:32 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote: > On Apr 29, 6:00 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Apr 29, 3:19 pm, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> So what is the "End of gravity's range", Mitchy-poo > >> Get it together don. Every force drops to zero. The electric and >> strong are only bond forces in the atom and do not extend further. >> > > The gravitational field of every object in the Universe extends to > that object's cosmological event horizon, weakened, yes, but present. > > Your move. Isn't this fun, Burt? Better than chess. You're right, however there is one place in the universe where gravity goes to zero, that's at the CG of the universe. And Mitch, babe, a visible light photon in flight doesn't have its energy go to zero ever. When it impacts a translucent surface the energy is converted to heat.
From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 21:18 On Apr 29, 5:51 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 4/29/2010 7:32 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 6:00 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 3:19 pm, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> So what is the "End of gravity's range", Mitchy-poo > > >> Get it together don. Every force drops to zero. The electric and > >> strong are only bond forces in the atom and do not extend further. > > > The gravitational field of every object in the Universe extends to > > that object's cosmological event horizon, weakened, yes, but present. And how did you measure the gravitational field into the distance? It is just an assumption about force that is wrong. Mitch Raemsch > > > Your move. Isn't this fun, Burt? Better than chess. > > You're right, however there is one place in the universe where > gravity goes to zero, that's at the CG of the universe. > > And Mitch, babe, a visible light photon in flight doesn't have > its energy go to zero ever. When it impacts a translucent surface > the energy is converted to heat.
From: purple on 29 Apr 2010 22:23
On 4/29/2010 8:22 PM, BURT wrote: > On Apr 25, 4:06 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>> You might consider it to have >>> started really with Galileio. If this is true it is about 400 years >>> old. How old do you want it to be? What will it be like in a million >>> years? >> >> I want it to be as old as it is. You want it to be recorded and >> reported starting with gravity. You're wrong. > > Show me where I am wrong. The first theory was about gravity. I told you once, I'll tell you again. The beginnings of science probably came about when humans or perhaps protohumans began to think about utilizing fire. Science is the study of nature. >>> Sceience is too young to claim it knows much. And the first force to >>> be formulated was gravity. And it is central to order in the universe. >> >> Nonsense. Your wanting something to be as you state is fails >> just as your will that you receive two Nobel prizes did.- > > You can wait on those ask Stephen Hawking. The discussion was about you stating for the best part of a year that you would be awarded 2 Nobel prizes that your. It didn't happen. You're as right about gravity being the beginnings of science as you were about those prizes you didn't get. |