Recent content by TheSicilianSa

Just as I thought. And before you go off on a diatribe about relativity, I suggest that you first define the difference between mass and inertia. - And where did you think that the measured mass comes from ? - pixie dust?

So, if it's so elementary, what's the answer ? - in kgs.

If you can't answer the question, simply say so. I'll make the question simpler for you: How massive would a two protons have to be so that it their attractive froce due to gravity would cancel the repulsive force between them ?

- Let's assume that this question were the bases for an experiment to show whether or not gravity was a function of "relativistic mass" - what would be the answer ?

Assume that you have two protons accelerated in opposite directions within a cyclotron. As they approach the speed of light their masses increase. At what proportion of the speed of light will their gravitational attraction (due to their increased mass) equal their electrostatic repulsion ?

Thanks mgb_phys for you input, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. I would like to know the particular structures of galaxies, how they evolve and how they relate to other types during their period of evolution.

I'm quite interested in finding out the % distribution of stars (by type, viz. O,B,..,M), a) within our galaxy and b) within other galaxy types (ex. globular, etc) - and how these distributions change with time. Can anyone sate my curiosity (or point me in the right direction) ?

Would someone please help me in thinking the following out: I was taught that the Newtonian gravitational potential was given as -Gm/r; and when examining a sphere of uniform density ρ and radius r, then at any point x ≤ r (within the sphere), m would refer to the effective mass of an...

Again, I thank you - most informative. I have a question on the Schwarzschild equation; should I continue to post here, post a new question under "cosmology" or post a new question under "black holes"?

Thank you for verifying my figures; but the fact that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light brings up a second question: I realize that our metrics are unaffected by a "faster than light" expansion, but wouldn't the intensity of the light reaching us from stars/galaxies...

Thus, as Marcus suggests (that R > 1.0E11) then V > 1.97E34 (cubic light years) ? And, by (1), that the minimum rate of expansion of the universe (if constant) = 2.16E9 (m/s)? Thank you all for your critique; I hope that all my future queries are likewise edifying.

Gentlemen: I am a rank amateur, so I would appreciate it if you would critique the following logic: If the Universe has been expanding at a maximum rate = H (m/s) for a period = Y (years), then the current “radius” = R of the 4D-hypersphere in which we assume to exist is: (1) R...