Titanomachy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Virgin Birth of Points
Next: All Electric AL-h2o2 or Hybrid Electric Hummer @100 empg and Zero NOx
From: Ned on 29 Nov 2007 10:15 "spincycle" <imspincycle(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:332be40a-641a-4de4-b54f-d817285a3c91(a)y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Nov, 22:12, "Ned" <nedl...(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > [...] >> Thus do I never come back, because I have never left. > > Now we recognize you! > > Yesterday upon the stair > I met a man who wasn't there. > He wasn't there again today > Oh how I wish he'd go away. > > ;] > I'm mu. Are you mu too? Together, would we be two mu? Or can mu only be the one - Illuminating like the sun? How dreadful never to be mu! Condemned to always deal with two, To race and hunt the livelong day, And never find a place to stay. - Ned
From: Rik on 29 Nov 2007 12:10 Ned wrote: > "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark(a)arvig.net> wrote in message > news:8fqdnXiYroxB79PanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d(a)onvoy.com... >>> But one question... If all motion is relative, how does >>> the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather >>> than IT revolving around the moon? >>> Ned >> If all motion is relative, how do you explain teh couch potato? >> > > Couch potatoes are singularities. They absorb everything and > nothing comes out, not even light. How fast would a singularity > have to spin in order for it to come apart? > > Ned > > You seem to be discounting the volumes of evidence that show couch potatoes do emit copious amounts of gas. Similar to poets, in that respect. Rik, knee deep.
From: Ned on 29 Nov 2007 13:12 "Rik" <rik(a)kalieda.org> wrote in message news:ioC3j.41703$JA1.2204(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > Ned wrote: >> "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark(a)arvig.net> wrote in message >> news:8fqdnXiYroxB79PanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d(a)onvoy.com... >>>> But one question... If all motion is relative, how does >>>> the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather >>>> than IT revolving around the moon? >>>> Ned >>> >>> If all motion is relative, how do you explain teh couch potato? >> >> Couch potatoes are singularities. They absorb everything and >> nothing comes out, not even light. How fast would a singularity >> have to spin in order for it to come apart? >> Ned > > You seem to be discounting the volumes of evidence that show > couch potatoes do emit copious amounts of gas. > Similar to poets, in that respect. > Rik, knee deep. > Ah, death where ist thy sting? O Critic, where ist thy victory? But seriously, how fast would a singularity have to spin in order for it to fly apart? Ned
From: Don Shepherd on 29 Nov 2007 14:12 Ned wrote: > > But seriously, how fast would a singularity have to spin in order > for it to fly apart? > > Ned > > 0/0 rpm. Don
From: Ned on 29 Nov 2007 16:16
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:QaE3j.15559$Mr.695(a)trnddc04... > >> But seriously, how fast would a singularity have to spin >> in order for it to fly apart? >> Ned > > 0/0 rpm. > Don > Ok, how fast would the earth have to spin for you to fly off it (assuming you were on the equator)? What is the escape velocity on earth - 25,000 miles per hour? So a person on the equator moves through one circumference, which is about 25,000 miles, in 24 hours, or about 1000 miles per hour. So if we speeded up the earth to 25,000 mph, or about 25 times its current rotational speed, or about one rotation per hour, things would fly off the equator. (Including dirt and mountains, etc. - of course, most organic matter would burn up.) Hmmm... that's interesting - wiki is quite adamant that the escape velocity of a black hole is infinite. That seems intuitively irritating. That's saying that no matter how fast a black hole spins, it CAN'T break up?? No way! There has GOT to be some rotational speed at which all the mass in a black hole becomes unstable and begins to break up. No, stop! Don't lecture me. Pick a number, a huge - impossibly huge - number, say 500 billion trillion revolutions per second. Don't tell me nothing bad would happen to the back hole under the force of that much angular momentum! Ned |