On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then >> >why not much sooner rather then later?
>> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?
>> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. >> I wonder if it really is though.
>Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed >by the extremely weak force of gravity.
>> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
>That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how accurately do we know G?
I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after all....
I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > You've forgotten to mention his being a twice arrested "wife beater" > as well as a drug induced "Satan worshiper", because that’s exactly > what their Zionist/Jewish policy includes and approves of, as well as > slave ownership and apparently body snatchings for live organ > harvesting, along with their kosher approved SEC and its Ponzi Madoff > types that have no remorse about stealing from God, their own kind, or > their putting dark-skinned folks on a stick, and more recently > excessively irradiating 100,000 dark-skinned Jewish kids.
> ______________________________ > So Einstein harvested organs, owned slaves and worshipped Satan while on > drugs?
> Are you sure Einstein didn't also eat Christian babies for dinner? I can see > no authoritative source which rules this out, so its probably true. Jews > love eating Christian babies.
Don't be silly, because it's well known they don't eat pork, although they do satanic rituals (including blood letting in order to drain those christian evil spirits). Their putting Christ on a stick should have given us a clue as to what they think of dark-skinned folks (including those of their own kind).
> > You've forgotten to mention his being a twice arrested "wife beater" > > as well as a drug induced "Satan worshiper", because that's exactly > > what their Zionist/Jewish policy includes and approves of, as well as > > slave ownership and apparently body snatchings for live organ > > harvesting, along with their kosher approved SEC and its Ponzi Madoff > > types that have no remorse about stealing from God, their own kind, or > > their putting dark-skinned folks on a stick, and more recently > > excessively irradiating 100,000 dark-skinned Jewish kids.
> > ______________________________ > > So Einstein harvested organs, owned slaves and worshipped Satan while on > > drugs?
> Of course, Einstein did make some great contributions to mankind. > The URL below describes Einstein's greatest invention in detail.
> Considering how intently the Mass Media, > and GTR Guru's on the public dole, > hyped and hypes Einstein's General Relativity,
> a model that uses rubber clocks and rulers > to waste time, money and minds > on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, > gravitons, warping through space, etc.
> as mankind's greatest intellectual achievement,
> comparing Einstein's greatest invention to
> Edison's inventions that gave man > audio and video recording, > electrical power generation and distribution systems > with generators, motors, meters, lamps, heaters, etc.
> and the Watson, Crick DNA model > that is used every day to improve health, > fight crime, design better food crops, etc.
> No doubt, Einstein, like Maddock, Marx, > the Biblical authors, Ayn Rand, Uncle Al, etc. > was a master words smith, > but when one measures his works by > their positive benefits to mankind, > one realizes that:
And it obviously doesn't pay being married to Einstein, but then many intelligent folks were wife beaters, child molesters and otherwise terrible social dysfunctionals of their own. Is there any dictator/ warlord or physics wizard that isn't at least bipolar?
>>> Mind you, there is no reason why some cold planets should not be hollow. >>> There would be no gravity inside the centre. [...] > I don't make errors, idiot.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling > >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then > >> >why not much sooner rather then later?
> >> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even > >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?
> >> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. > >> I wonder if it really is though.
> >Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more > >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong > >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed > >by the extremely weak force of gravity.
> >> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
> >That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of > >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given > >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure > >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
> When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been > accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how > accurately do we know G?
> I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to > bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after > all....
> I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.
There should be an increase in acceleration as due to that extremely weak force of gravity. Therefore a given identical volume of uranium as opposed to a hydrogen filled balloon should not fall or join up with another given control mass at the exact same velocity.
Once again, the science habitat/platform as easily situated within Selene L1 would have nailed this and many other kinds of science as of decades ago, as well as easier to have accomplished than any one of those Apollo missions.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:09:35 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling >> >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then >> >> >why not much sooner rather then later?
>> >> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even >> >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?
>> >> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. >> >> I wonder if it really is though.
>> >Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more >> >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong >> >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed >> >by the extremely weak force of gravity.
>> >> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
>> >That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of >> >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given >> >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure >> >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
>> When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been >> accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how >> accurately do we know G?
>> I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to >> bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after >> all....
>> I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.
>There should be an increase in acceleration as due to that extremely >weak force of gravity. Therefore a given identical volume of uranium >as opposed to a hydrogen filled balloon should not fall or join up >with another given control mass at the exact same velocity.
>Once again, the science habitat/platform as easily situated within >Selene L1 would have nailed this and many other kinds of science as of >decades ago, as well as easier to have accomplished than any one of >those Apollo missions.
> ~ BG
Yes. This could indeed be tested on the moon.
There are several posibilities. In any atom, we know that at least some of its mass is associated with 'binding energy'. We don't actually know whether or not ALL mass is a consequence of binding energy in some form. In other words, does 'pure mass' exist at all?
Another question asks if gravity fields act equally on both types of mass if such exist. Also, does 'binding mass' contribute to inertial mass?
Dropping two dissimilar objects from a high tower on the moon would at least tell us something.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. > >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> >> >> > > > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” > >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
> >> >> > > > > Double-A
> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> >> >> > > > ~ BG
> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> >> >> > > Double-A
> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS > >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the > >> >> opposite side.
> >> >> Double-A
> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk > >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless > >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd > >> >be representing gravity).
> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> >> > ~ BG
> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >> star?
> >> It could easily be hollow.
> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at > >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid > >from its outermost shell to its core.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:09:35 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> >> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling > >> >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then > >> >> >why not much sooner rather then later?
> >> >> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even > >> >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?
> >> >> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. > >> >> I wonder if it really is though.
> >> >Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more > >> >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong > >> >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed > >> >by the extremely weak force of gravity.
> >> >> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
> >> >That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of > >> >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given > >> >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure > >> >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
> >> When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been > >> accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how > >> accurately do we know G?
> >> I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to > >> bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after > >> all....
> >> I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.
> >There should be an increase in acceleration as due to that extremely > >weak force of gravity. Therefore a given identical volume of uranium > >as opposed to a hydrogen filled balloon should not fall or join up > >with another given control mass at the exact same velocity.
> >Once again, the science habitat/platform as easily situated within > >Selene L1 would have nailed this and many other kinds of science as of > >decades ago, as well as easier to have accomplished than any one of > >those Apollo missions.
> > ~ BG
> Yes. This could indeed be tested on the moon.
> There are several posibilities. > In any atom, we know that at least some of its mass is associated with 'binding > energy'. We don't actually know whether or not ALL mass is a consequence of > binding energy in some form. In other words, does 'pure mass' exist at all?
> Another question asks if gravity fields act equally on both types of mass if > such exist. Also, does 'binding mass' contribute to inertial mass?
> Dropping two dissimilar objects from a high tower on the moon would at least > tell us something.
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
>> >> >> > > > > > What could produce “ reduced pressure and/or lower density ” >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
>> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
>> >> >> > > > > Double-A
>> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
>> >> >> > > > ~ BG
>> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
>> >> >> > > Double-A
>> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
>> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
>> >> >> > ~ BG
>> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the >> >> >> opposite side.
>> >> >> Double-A
>> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >> >> >be representing gravity).
>> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>> >> > ~ BG
>> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >> >> star?
>> >> It could easily be hollow.
>> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
>> Or flattened...
>Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. > >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> >> >> >> > > > > > What could produce reduced pressure and/or lower density > >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> >> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
> >> >> >> > > > > Double-A
> >> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> >> >> >> > > > ~ BG
> >> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> >> >> >> > > Double-A
> >> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> >> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> >> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS > >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the > >> >> >> opposite side.
> >> >> >> Double-A
> >> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk > >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless > >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd > >> >> >be representing gravity).
> >> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >> >> star?
> >> >> It could easily be hollow.
> >> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
> >> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at > >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid > >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
> >> Or flattened...
> >Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
> Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star and its flat surrounding disk of orbiting white dwarfs. A large white dwarf of <10 Ms should be impressive but still not very large (say <10,000 km radii). The flat ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only 1,000 km thick with a radius of 100,000 km (roughly the volume of Earth).
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. > >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> >> >> >> > > > > > What could produce reduced pressure and/or lower density > >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> >> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
> >> >> >> > > > > Double-A
> >> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> >> >> >> > > > ~ BG
> >> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> >> >> >> > > Double-A
> >> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> >> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> >> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS > >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the > >> >> >> opposite side.
> >> >> >> Double-A
> >> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk > >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless > >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd > >> >> >be representing gravity).
> >> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >> >> star?
> >> >> It could easily be hollow.
> >> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
> >> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at > >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid > >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
> >> Or flattened...
> >Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
> Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only 1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. ~ BG
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:19:39 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 21, 1:14 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. >> >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
>> >> >> >> > > > > > What could produce reduced pressure and/or lower density >> >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
>> >> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has >> >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the >> >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your >> >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
>> >> >> >> > > > > Double-A
>> >> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as >> >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) >> >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even >> >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final >> >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
>> >> >> >> > > > ~ BG
>> >> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would >> >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
>> >> >> >> > > Double-A
>> >> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
>> >> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
>> >> >> >> > ~ BG
>> >> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS >> >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the >> >> >> >> opposite side.
>> >> >> >> Double-A
>> >> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk >> >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless >> >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd >> >> >> >be representing gravity).
>> >> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>> >> >> > ~ BG
>> >> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome >> >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron >> >> >> star?
>> >> >> It could easily be hollow.
>> >> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>> >> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at >> >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid >> >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
>> >> Or flattened...
>> >Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
>> Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
>Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
>Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its >flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a >pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive >but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and >fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only >1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 >ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. > ~ BG
Quasers epitomize how astronomy has been completely derailed by Einstein. Because they feature high redshifts, it has been assumed they are very distant and therefore very powerful. In reality they are just large neutron stars in 'heavy' galaxies. Light escaping from them slows down dramatically, causing the excessive redshifts.
I compiled a program to calculate redshifts from galaxies. Earth lies on the outskirts of ours. Therefore light approaching us doesn't experience as much blueshift as it would if it accelerated all the way to the centre..
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:19:39 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 21, 1:14 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. > >> >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and temperature.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > What could produce reduced pressure and/or lower density > >> >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
> >> >> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice that has > >> >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference is that the > >> >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no direction for your > >> >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
> >> >> >> >> > > > > Double-A
> >> >> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of Earth as > >> >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less than 0.1%) > >> >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually zero or even > >> >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate within this final > >> >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
> >> >> >> >> > > > ~ BG
> >> >> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, what would > >> >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
> >> >> >> >> > > Double-A
> >> >> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
> >> >> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero gravity?
> >> >> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that IS > >> >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side attracting the > >> >> >> >> opposite side.
> >> >> >> >> Double-A
> >> >> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast bulk > >> >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards unless > >> >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus you'd > >> >> >> >be representing gravity).
> >> >> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
> >> >> >> > ~ BG
> >> >> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to obercome > >> >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning neutron > >> >> >> star?
> >> >> >> It could easily be hollow.
> >> >> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
> >> >> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions at > >> >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near solid > >> >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
> >> >> Or flattened...
> >> >Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
> >> Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
> >Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
> >Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its > >flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a > >pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive > >but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and > >fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only > >1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 > >ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. > > ~ BG
> Quasers epitomize how astronomy has been completely derailed by Einstein. > Because they feature high redshifts, it has been assumed they are very distant > and therefore very powerful. > In reality they are just large neutron stars in 'heavy' galaxies. Light > escaping from them slows down dramatically, causing the excessive redshifts.
> I compiled a program to calculate redshifts from galaxies. Earth lies on the > outskirts of ours. Therefore light approaching us doesn't experience as much > blueshift as it would if it accelerated all the way to the centre..
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:19:39 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>On Nov 21, 1:14 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:02:22 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Nov 6, 12:04 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:54:00 -0800 (PST), BradGuth >>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >On Nov 3, 2:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:11:56 -0800 (PST), BradGuth >>> >> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >On Nov 3, 12:49 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Nov 3, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > On Nov 3, 11:57 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > > On Nov 3, 10:52 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > > > > On Oct 29, 10:43 pm, _@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > > > > > Pressure accrues. >>> >> >> >> > > > > > The deeper you go the higher the pressure and >>> >> >> >> > > > > > temperature.
>>> >> >> >> > > > > > What could produce reduced pressure and/or lower >>> >> >> >> > > > > > density >>> >> >> >> > > > > > at the center of the earth ?
>>> >> >> >> > > > > At the center of the Earth it's like you are in a vice >>> >> >> >> > > > > that has >>> >> >> >> > > > > tightened on you to terrific pressure. Only difference >>> >> >> >> > > > > is that the >>> >> >> >> > > > > pressure is from all sides equally, so there is no >>> >> >> >> > > > > direction for your >>> >> >> >> > > > > brains to squirt out!
>>> >> >> >> > > > > Double-A
>>> >> >> >> > > > However, at near zero gravity (say within a 1% volume of >>> >> >> >> > > > Earth as >>> >> >> >> > > > representing its inner most core where gravity is less >>> >> >> >> > > > than 0.1%) >>> >> >> >> > > > whereas the center most zone of dead center is actually >>> >> >> >> > > > zero or even >>> >> >> >> > > > reverse gravity (meaning you'd oscillate or vibrate >>> >> >> >> > > > within this final >>> >> >> >> > > > sphere), how can there be pressure?
>>> >> >> >> > > > ~ BG
>>> >> >> >> > > If your head were clamped in a vice that was tightening, >>> >> >> >> > > what would >>> >> >> >> > > you care about gravity? Get the point?
>>> >> >> >> > > Double-A
>>> >> >> >> > At near zero gravity, where's all that pressure coming from?
>>> >> >> >> > How much does lead or any other element weigh at zero >>> >> >> >> > gravity?
>>> >> >> >> > ~ BG
>>> >> >> >> The pressure is coming from the mass on all sides of you that >>> >> >> >> IS >>> >> >> >> feeling gravity and is all pushing inwards, each side >>> >> >> >> attracting the >>> >> >> >> opposite side.
>>> >> >> >> Double-A
>>> >> >> >However, an eggshell would likely protect you, because the vast >>> >> >> >bulk >>> >> >> >of whatever is surrounding yourself is being pulled outwards >>> >> >> >unless >>> >> >> >you yourself represented more density than anything else (thus >>> >> >> >you'd >>> >> >> >be representing gravity).
>>> >> >> >If the core substance were that of hydrogen and helium?
>>> >> >> > ~ BG
>>> >> >> Earth is slowly rotating so centrifugal force is insufficiet to >>> >> >> obercome >>> >> >> gratvity near the centre. But what about a very rapidly spinning >>> >> >> neutron >>> >> >> star?
>>> >> >> It could easily be hollow.
>>> >> >> There is no gravity field inside homogeneous shell.
>>> >> >Only if that neutron star were spinning in all possible directions >>> >> >at >>> >> >the same time (atom like), as otherwise it would have to be near >>> >> >solid >>> >> >from its outermost shell to its core.
>>> >> Or flattened...
>>> >Never thought of that. Sure, why not flat.
>>> Why not? There's no 'surface tension' to make them spherical.
>>Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
>>Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its >>flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a >>pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive >>but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and >>fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only >>1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 >>ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. >> ~ BG
> Quasers
A QuasAr is a quasi-stellAr object, what's a quasEr?
>>>Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
>>>Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its >>>flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a >>>pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive >>>but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and >>>fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only >>>1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 >>>ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. >>> ~ BG
>> Quasers
>A QuasAr is a quasi-stellAr object, what's a quasEr?
>>>>Here's my revised reply with one major correction.
>>>>Quasars could be a flat (fast spinning) neutron star along with its >>>>flat surrounding companion disk of orbiting white dwarfs (creating a >>>>pulsar). A large spinning white dwarf of 5<10 Ms should be impressive >>>>but still not very large (ellipsolid <10,000 km radii). The flat and >>>>fast spinning ellipsoid neutron star of 100<1000 Ms might be only >>>>1,000 km thick with an elliptical *diameter* of 100,000 km (100:1 >>>>ellipsolid and roughly the volume of Earth). Next stop: black hole. >>>> ~ BG
>>> Quasers
>>A QuasAr is a quasi-stellAr object, what's a quasEr?
> ....silly old pom...
Not quite. It's "... stupid old sheep-shagging ozzie...", almost as stupid as Guth. Not my fault if you can't spell. Illiteracy is common among D Sc's.
> A QuasAr is a quasi-stellAr object, what's a quasEr?
Quasers are the rotating orbs in Guthie's head. One might make the mistake of calling them eyes, but since he is obviously blind, they must be something else. Some have thought of studying the phenomenon, but the endless volume of kOOk babble has the tendency to drive people insane.
|
