|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... Now let's hear Zinni's esteemed rebuttal. oc Sorry Bill, no time to play right now. (and besides, your beginning to bore the hell out of me) Oh ... what the heck. Just for old times sake why don't you tell us what your juicer represents on a Cosmic scale??? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question for OG..
Just out of curiosity, under the 'curvature of space' description of gravity, why does weight diminish as you go below the planet's surface? It seems like there'd have to be some pretty fancy and complex 'curvatures' to describe weight diminishment as you approach center. And *at* center you find the densest compaction of stuff which "should" logically induce the greatest 'curvature' and greatest weight. But it doesn't. Weight becomes zero at center. Do you not begin to see that the 'curvature' is an abstract (albeit brilliantly deduced) description of effects and not a literal _explanation of causation_? In your post you stated, "Observe how the infalling space gets captured by the rock above....". Actually the word "infalling" should be 'inflowing'. What "falls" is matter that gets swept along by the *flow* of space. So long as the object is in freefall, it is simply 'going with the flow' and is 'weight'-less. When it is obstructed from falling, as when it sits on the ground, it exhibits resistance to the flow, and hence has 'weight'. A rough analogy is the latticed blades of a Dutch windmill which catch the force of the wind while yet permeable to the wind; similarly the atomic lattice of matter 'catches' the force of the spatial flow while yet permeable to it. The densest elements exhibit the greatest resistance and thus are the 'heaviest'. oc |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... Question for OG.. Just out of curiosity, under the 'curvature of space' description of gravity, why does weight diminish as you go below the planet's surface? It seems like there'd have to be some pretty fancy and complex 'curvatures' to describe weight diminishment as you approach center. Why? And *at* center you find the densest compaction of stuff which "should" logically induce the greatest 'curvature' and greatest weight. Nope But it doesn't. Weight becomes zero at center. Do you not begin to see that the 'curvature' is an abstract (albeit brilliantly deduced) description of effects and not a literal _explanation of causation_? Agreed. You however, claim to have a literal explanation of causation but one that is resistant to mathematical or physical analysis. Bit of a shame really ! In your post you stated, "Observe how the infalling space gets captured by the rock above....". Actually the word "infalling" should be 'inflowing'. What "falls" is matter that gets swept along by the *flow* of space. So long as the object is in freefall, it is simply 'going with the flow' and is 'weight'-less. When it is obstructed from falling, as when it sits on the ground, it exhibits resistance to the flow, and hence has 'weight'. A rough analogy is the latticed blades of a Dutch windmill which catch the force of the wind while yet permeable to the wind; similarly the atomic lattice of matter 'catches' the force of the spatial flow while yet permeable to it. The densest elements exhibit the greatest resistance and thus are the 'heaviest'. oc |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
JohnZ I thought cartoon caractors only had 3 fingers. The hand is so
very difficult to draw. I think we could get by with three fingers,but it does look nicer with four. Bert Michael Anleglo did the hand best. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
From OG
Think about measuring your weight on a scales inside and outside NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain. You claim that the weight would be less inside. Please could we have a calculation of how this would work. Not sure what you mean by "calculation", but try a 'thought experiment'; think of yourself off in deep space and parked on an asteroid. The asteroid happens to have the same mass as the mass above your cave on Cheyenne Mtn. How much do you weigh on the asteroid? A fraction of a gram maybe? Subtract that amount from your Earth weight outside the cave; it should equal your (slightly diminished) weight inside the cave. You won't begin to see signifgant weight diminishment until you're well below surface datum and there's large amounts of mass above. You however, claim to have a literal explanation of causation but one that is resistant to mathematical or physical analysis. Bit of a shame really. "I" claim to have nothing, just referances to those who do. Apparently you never read the treatises by Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al which were posted several times previously, and are replete with math. And seriously, i dunno what can be more empirical than the bathroom scale analysis of matter's resistance to the flow. Pretty straight forward and pragmatic stuff.. unless of course there is 'no medium'. oc |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
From JohnZ:
...your beginning to bore the hell out of me) Well then use yer cotton-pickin' killfile, brainiac. You do have one don't you??? Oh ... what the heck. Just for old times sake why don't you tell us what your juicer represents on a Cosmic scale??? How about yer Cuisinart??? Now use that killfile so you won't be bored no more. oc |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... From OG Think about measuring your weight on a scales inside and outside NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain. You claim that the weight would be less inside. Please could we have a calculation of how this would work. Not sure what you mean by "calculation", You know - calculation of weight loss, that kind of thing. Something that can be measured. Scientifc stuff. but try a 'thought experiment'; think of yourself off in deep space and parked on an asteroid. The asteroid happens to have the same mass as the mass above your cave on Cheyenne Mtn. Would that be the whole mass above the cave, or just the mass above the cross section of my body? Once again, you are not being rigorous. It's your physical explanation, tell me what it predicts. How much do you weigh on the asteroid? A fraction of a gram maybe? Subtract that amount from your Earth weight outside the cave; it should equal your (slightly diminished) weight inside the cave. And does this happen? You won't begin to see signifgant weight diminishment until you're well below surface datum and there's large amounts of mass above. You however, claim to have a literal explanation of causation but one that is resistant to mathematical or physical analysis. Bit of a shame really. "I" claim to have nothing, just referances to those who do. Apparently you never read the treatises by Lindner, Warren, Shifner et al which were posted several times previously, and are replete with math. Wrong, I did read Lindner's, but you were unable to assist with explaining its shortcomings. Your 'interpretation' of the work doesn't match the original in many respects. And seriously, i dunno what can be more empirical than the bathroom scale analysis of matter's resistance to the flow. Pretty straight forward and pragmatic stuff.. unless of course there is 'no medium'. oc You are failing to give a convincing reason for adopting their model. I don't really mind that I'm not changing your mind; but do I wonder why IF you keep insisting its 'true' you aren't at all interested in providing testable proof. My dad used to know someone who would find little splinters of stone and insist they were 'stone age arrow heads'; it was a totally delusional, but he was a gentle man and it did no harm. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OG and oc Lets go with QM gravity. Each particle being a gravity force.
Lets go down a shaft 5 miles. That means 5 miles of particle force pulling upward. It also means 4 thousands miles of particles pulling downward(to the center of the Earth. At the exact Earth's center gravity is pull in all directions(up down east and west) force of gravity cancelled out. Only the objects inertia is now a positive force.(to itself ) OG walking though a valley of the Cheyenne Mountains the mountain's mass would pull you from each side,but they cancell each other out,and also the force would be so tiny. Don't like my typing (hope my thoughts are OK |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
OG, i've no doubt your Dad's a fine chap, but did he ever tell you your
preoccupation with minutiae, details and particulars is preventing you from simply kicking back and seeing the overview, the big picture? Sorta like focusing in on the just the rivets and girders of the Eiffel Tower without ever backing off and seeing the Tower. Tried the same analogy with Zinni and the Statue of Liberty, with null result.g oc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 01:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |