|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Know your gravity from a hole in the ground
oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote: The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within the Earth. It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there. http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm -- Dave Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly . Since you insist... -- Dave Good,just as I thought and predictable. Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below the fractured surface crust. Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604 The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation. The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions snip DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians per century? -- Dave Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate tectonics. snip You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not the case in any reasonable fashion. I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical and that is why I alone work with differential rotation as a consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential rotation. *If instead you mean just the fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I know. It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical clone and adopt a docile personality, The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one doesn't know. -- Dave Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations snip Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no precession. Yet precession exists. Does your specific arrangement of reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis precesses? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Know your gravity from a hole in the ground
On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote: The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within the Earth. It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there. http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm -- Dave Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly . Since you insist... -- Dave Good,just as I thought and predictable. Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below the fractured surface crust. Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604 The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation. The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions snip DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians per century? -- Dave Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate tectonics. snip You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not the case in any reasonable fashion. I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential rotation. *If instead you mean just the fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I know. It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical clone and adopt a docile personality, The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one doesn't know. -- Dave Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations snip Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. * If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis precesses? 'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition and subsequently differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a 'rigid' axis and despite the sense that genuine people are desperate to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics. I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this one - http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and provides the mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more than a few who already know it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Know your gravity from a hole in the ground
oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote: The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within the Earth. It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there. http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm -- Dave Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly . Since you insist... -- Dave Good,just as I thought and predictable. Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below the fractured surface crust. Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604 The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation. The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions snip DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians per century? -- Dave Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate tectonics. snip You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not the case in any reasonable fashion. I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential rotation. *If instead you mean just the fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I know. It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical clone and adopt a docile personality, The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one doesn't know. -- Dave Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations snip Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. * If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis precesses? 'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition and subsequently differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a 'rigid' axis and despite the sense that genuine people are desperate to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics. I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this one - http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and provides the mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more than a few who already know it. You're flailing. You're also failing to make your point and failing to address the question of precession. Precession is a testable prediction of your line of reasoning. Your line of reasoning fails the test. Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact. As such, you have several options, chief among which a 1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down. 2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust your line of reasoning to fit observation. The choice is yours. -- Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Know your gravity from a hole in the ground
On Nov 11, 2:45*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote: The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within the Earth. It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there. http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm -- Dave Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly . Since you insist... -- Dave Good,just as I thought and predictable. Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below the fractured surface crust. Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604 The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation. The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions snip DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians per century? -- Dave Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate tectonics. snip You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not the case in any reasonable fashion. I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential rotation. *If instead you mean just the fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I know. It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical clone and adopt a docile personality, The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one doesn't know. -- Dave Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations snip Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. * If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis precesses? 'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition *and subsequently differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a 'rigid' axis *and despite the *sense that genuine people are desperate * to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics. I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this one - http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and *provides the mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more than a few who already know it. You're flailing. *You're also failing to make your point and failing to address the question of precession. *Precession is a testable prediction of your line of reasoning. Your line of reasoning fails the test. Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact. As such, you have several options, chief among which a 1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down. 2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust your line of reasoning to fit observation. The choice is yours. -- Dave Suit yourself,I have been working with rotational dynamics and specifically differential rotation for years and its geological consequences and leave you with your stationary Earth 'convection cells' notion and the viscous interior designed around that stationary Earth notion.I think you and your empirical colleagues should be proud of your 'convection cells' mechanism for crustal motion and you would not like fluid dynamics of a rotating body. Mind that 'tilt' now,do you hear. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Know your gravity from a hole in the ground
oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:45*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 9:18*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 8:10*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 10, 1:05*am, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 5:59*pm, Dave Typinski wrote: oriel36 wrote: On Nov 9, 7:19*am, Dave Typinski wrote: The latest installment of Typinski procrastinates against anything productive found me investigating gravitational acceleration within the Earth. It doesn't go quite as one might expect... not even in the right direction. *Acceleration goes up and down through the crust, then steadily increases through the bottom half of the mantle the closer you get to that big ol' ball of nickel-iron down there. http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/EarthGrav.htm -- Dave Good,you would not dare post this topic on sci.astro.amateur so *I guess you have learned your lesson pretty quickly . Since you insist... -- Dave Good,just as I thought and predictable. Planetary shape is reliant on rotational dynamics and the specifics of that dynamic,especially the rotation of the viscous composition below the fractured surface crust. Stellar dynamicists have been working with the correlation between maximum Equatorial speed,spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5604 The missing component is differential rotation as the latitudinal shear bands differ between Equatorial and polar regions depending on maximum Equatorial speed and reducing to zero speed at the poles therefore there is a triumvirate of correlations for any rotating celestial bodies with a viscous composition whether it it stellar plasma or the internal viscous composition of the Earth,these intimate correlations are maximum Equatorial speed,differential rotation and spherical deviation. The 40 Km spherical deviation of the Earth is due to differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions snip DIfferential rotation? *At what possible magnitude, a few microradians per century? -- Dave Differential rotation is a consequence of fluid dynamics and specifically that pf a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition.This *rotational dynamic replaces stationary Earth and thermally driven 'convection cells notion ' as the mechanism for crustal motion by first accounting for the 40Km planetary spherical deviation first and then uses the same mechanism to drive plate tectonics. snip You claimed that the Earth exhibited differential rotation, which implied that the crust exhibited this phenomenon, which is clearly not the case in any reasonable fashion. I have a very good reason to believe that your reasoning is typical and that is why *I alone work with differential rotation as a consequence of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial body with a viscous interior .The implications are really only for those who can handle rotational dynamics and unfortunately I have yet to meet one person who can apply the lessons learned from observed stellar rotational dynamics and apply the generalized principles which link maximum Equatorial speed with spherical deviation via differential rotation. *If instead you mean just the fluid core, then it beats me. *I know squat about the dynamics of the Earth's core, so your ideas may be as good as anyone else's for all I know. It is always nice to see a guy arrive with a gung-ho attitude in sci.astro.amateur and then quickly dissolve into another empirical clone and adopt a docile personality, The trick is to know what one doesn't know. *One is gung ho about things one knows one knows. *One defers on things one knows one doesn't know. -- Dave Fair reply however the idea is not to conjure up whatever story is needed to reach whatever conclusion is desired,the object is to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that fits observations snip Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. * If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. *Does your specific arrangement of reasoning agree with the observable fact that Earth's spin axis precesses? 'Spin axis' indeed !,the topic of fluid dynamics of a rotating celestial object with a viscous composition *and subsequently differential rotation is not suited for people who believe in a 'rigid' axis *and despite the *sense that genuine people are desperate * to discuss rotational dynamics applied to geodynamic consequences,they cannot remove themselves from 'convection cells' to accomplish the shift to rotation dynamics. I am just getting used to the idea that posting graphics designed to embarrass people into action actually make sense to them such as this one - http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/image/1-3-2.JPG Look,if you want to believe in a 'convection cell' dynamic then good for you,I prefer rotational dynamics as the mechanism which generates the 40 Km spherical deviation of the planet and *provides the mechanism for the evolution and motion of the fractured crust via differential rotation.The link is a huge advance and there are more than a few who already know it. You're flailing. *You're also failing to make your point and failing to address the question of precession. *Precession is a testable prediction of your line of reasoning. Your line of reasoning fails the test. Earth's spin axis precesses at a rate of about 1° per 71 years. *The only way it precesses is if 1) the Earth is an oblate spheroid and 2) the Earth's spin axis forms an acute angle with its orbital plane. *If the spin axis is not inclined to the orbital plane, as you claim, there's no precession. *Yet precession exists. Therefore, if you want to enjoy a specific arrangement of reasoning that agrees with observation, you will need to account for that fact. As such, you have several options, chief among which a 1) Convince yourself that precession doesn't really exist, that it's all a Newtonian conspiracy to keep the true astronomers down. 2) Find out why precession works the way it does and adjust your line of reasoning to fit observation. The choice is yours. -- Dave Suit yourself,I have been working with rotational dynamics and specifically differential rotation for years and its geological consequences and leave you with your stationary Earth 'convection cells' notion and the viscous interior designed around that stationary Earth notion.I think you and your empirical colleagues should be proud of your 'convection cells' mechanism for crustal motion and you would not like fluid dynamics of a rotating body. Mind that 'tilt' now,do you hear. Option #1 it is. So noted. -- Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Know your analemma from a hole in the ground | Dave Typinski[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 48 | November 11th 08 06:43 PM |
Black Hole Electron Concept Could Unify Gravity and Electromagn... | www.freedomtofascism.com | Misc | 0 | May 11th 08 03:40 PM |
Black Hole Electron Concept Could Unify Gravity andElectromagn... | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 12 | January 21st 08 05:33 PM |
Kibble's ground-breaking 1961 paper on gravity as a local gauge theory | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 3rd 06 05:35 AM |
!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity | Aunt Buffy | Misc | 366 | August 7th 04 03:02 AM |