Has anyone checked to see if Deuterium is really stable at 2.7 Kelvin or below??

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc

I may be maligning him, but IIRC he also went overboard for the Cydonia
and "face on Mars" nonsense.
He also supports the theory that the asteroids come from an exploded
planet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that
the only evidence he proposed (moons of asteroids, and specifically a
debris field around Eros - God know why) hasn't appeared
Everyone's entitled to hold unconventional theories about physics,
though.
Gravity _has_ to appear to be instantaneous, an idea that goes back to
Newton, but current theories hate real instantaneous effects.
Slightly related topic; does anyone know how the discovery that the
speed of light was finite influenced Newton's thinking? That was a
revolution as big as any in science.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

To Jonathan S.-
I didn't know van Flandern had joined the Hoagland crowd
with the 'face on Mars' bit and the asteroids being the remains of the
exploded planet 'Maldek'. That would tend to discredit him for sure. oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

To Jonathan S.-
I didn't know van Flandern had joined the Hoagland crowd
with the 'face on Mars' bit and the asteroids being the remains of the
exploded planet 'Maldek'. That would tend to discredit him for sure. oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
How about this Idea

Matter, deuterium, can absorb Energy,
photons at the speed of gravity,
53100km per second.

Huh?? Here's a good, concise little read for you-
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d...bndetails.html

And how in the world did you deduce the "speed of gravity"? The figure
you cite is less than a third the speed of light. The general belief
is
that gravity "propogates" at the speed of light. And that's under the
void-space premise (but we won't go there `chuckle`). oc


Sorry Typo 531000 km per second



sqrt(C * C * pi)



If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
How about this Idea

Matter, deuterium, can absorb Energy,
photons at the speed of gravity,
53100km per second.

Huh?? Here's a good, concise little read for you-
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d...bndetails.html

And how in the world did you deduce the "speed of gravity"? The figure
you cite is less than a third the speed of light. The general belief
is
that gravity "propogates" at the speed of light. And that's under the
void-space premise (but we won't go there `chuckle`). oc


Sorry Typo 531000 km per second



sqrt(C * C * pi)



If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

wrote in message
...
If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time.

I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at
the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of
physics are universal in time and space.

My argument would go thus:-

Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star
and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The
definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit
let us say 600 light seconds from the stars.

Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a
measurable acceleration.
For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is
both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration.

Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly,
such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period
of time (in a flash one might say).

Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to
radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge
of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if
gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag
behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly
the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed
- either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist
- or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable
period of time

I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity
propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues
of simulaneity that this raises.

Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like
quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by
considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton.

wrote in message
...
If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time.

I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at
the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of
physics are universal in time and space.

My argument would go thus:-

Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star
and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The
definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit
let us say 600 light seconds from the stars.

Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a
measurable acceleration.
For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is
both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration.

Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly,
such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period
of time (in a flash one might say).

Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to
radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge
of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if
gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag
behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly
the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed
- either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist
- or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable
period of time

I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity
propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues
of simulaneity that this raises.

Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like
quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by
considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton.

"OG" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time.

I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at
the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of
physics are universal in time and space.

My argument would go thus:-

Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star
and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The
definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit
let us say 600 light seconds from the stars.

Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to
a
measurable acceleration.
For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there
is
both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration.

Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly,
such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short
period
of time (in a flash one might say).

Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to
radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge
of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if
gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag
behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly
the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed
- either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist
- or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a
measurable
period of time

I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity
propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues
of simulaneity that this raises.

Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like
quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by
considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton.


See that is the thing, I think it is time for a name change for particle
physics...

To ..(Little Tiny Event horzions with more even smaller event horizons
inside).. physics

I know it is a long name but it should be plainly clear by now to all
involved that there are No particles..anywhere.
and everybody needs to stop deluding themselves, it clouds your thinking.

we are a walking, talking, thinking, farting clouds of swirling interacting
event horizons. and so is the earth.

"OG" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would
equal it's diameter.

Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon

the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is
not.

Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time.

I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at
the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of
physics are universal in time and space.

My argument would go thus:-

Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star
and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The
definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit
let us say 600 light seconds from the stars.

Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to
a
measurable acceleration.
For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there
is
both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration.

Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly,
such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short
period
of time (in a flash one might say).

Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to
radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge
of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if
gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag
behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly
the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed
- either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist
- or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a
measurable
period of time

I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity
propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues
of simulaneity that this raises.

Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like
quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by
considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton.


See that is the thing, I think it is time for a name change for particle
physics...

To ..(Little Tiny Event horzions with more even smaller event horizons
inside).. physics

I know it is a long name but it should be plainly clear by now to all
involved that there are No particles..anywhere.
and everybody needs to stop deluding themselves, it clouds your thinking.

we are a walking, talking, thinking, farting clouds of swirling interacting
event horizons. and so is the earth.

wrote in message
...

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity',

I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks
it's enormous, but he seems to have lost
the reputation he once had.

Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation
is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably
why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing
'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is
instantaneous at any distance. oc


Just in case I guessed Right, the last eight digits of my cable modems mac
address is DAA46260.
And a Mr. David A Smith kind of knows more about what I am proposing.
Hope
he doesn't mind me dragging him into this.

I would Put my self at the level of "Kook" right now. but mabye a kook
that
guessed right.


http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum chamber

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html