From: Rik on
Ned wrote:
> "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.
>
Surely it just needs to be slightly higher than the speed of light.
Which is in turn slightly lower than the speed achieved by the average
poet chasing a publishing contract.

Rik, knee deep.

> 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
>
>
From: James Whitehead on

"Ned" <nedludd(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13kub73d2uh7jee(a)corp.supernews.com...

> 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!

If it is a "hole" then its empty....


From: James Whitehead on

"Ned" <nedludd(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13ks6nahas71r3f(a)corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:URo3j.50965$Pt.45933(a)trnddc02...
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> What does it mean to say that the earth "knows" something?
>> Don
>>
>
> What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
> thing, when all motion is relative?
>
> Ned
>
>


From: Dennis M. Hammes on
Don Shepherd wrote:

> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>> Don Shepherd wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're all bosons on this bus.
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>>
>> Step to the back of the bus, then.
>> You've hadron too many.
>>
>
> Boy, you really lepton that!
>
> Don


A leftover reflex from my days in vaudeville, when I usually got pion
my face for it.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
From: James Whitehead on

"James Whitehead" <james(a)somewhereovertherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Ned" <nedludd(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:13ks6nahas71r3f(a)corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:URo3j.50965$Pt.45933(a)trnddc02...
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> What does it mean to say that the earth "knows" something?
>>> Don
>>>
>>
>> What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
>> thing, when all motion is relative?
>>
>> Ned
>>

I see the sun go around... people even scientists are happy to talk about
sun "rise" - it makes sense - has meaning...


i thought that relativity involved relations - no "ALL" - that puts one on
the outside of any relationship.