Sorry a bit 'off thread' but
SpaceTiger said:
No, that's a measurable effect. In science, we're only concerned with measurable effects. If that's not what you mean by what we can "see", then I can assure that the distinction you're making is scientifically uninteresting.
What I mean by 'See' is simply that you cannot see {Visualy} that gravity
is acting in an on-going-persistent-incessant fashion-manner as to keep that car attached to the ground, Unmoving, and you cannot "see" it doing that, "see" as in OBSERVE {Visually} the energy at work.
If you have a Problem with the idea of "invisible things" {'things' like energy} you cannot see radiation either, so use a gieger counter and be scientific.
That you personally express that as something that you find "scientifically uninteresting" is to me more your loss then anything else.
SpaceTiger said:
The noun form of "elemental" is not used in that way, so please use the word "element" in the future if you want people to understand you. Nobody is going to think that you're unintelligent if you use the standard meanings of words.
Now you are making me laugh, forgive me, but I find this rather
condescending, in tone. {Langauge instructions?}
SpaceTiger said:
No idea what you're trying to say. The same applies to your other posts, which read more like a philosophy text than a scientific query. You need to be more precise if you wish to understand something scientific. For example, sentences like the following:
Firstly what leads you to believe that I am making only 'queries'? nevermind you seem to miss that all science
is Philosophically based, from it's outset, as it is a System of 'beliefs-theories' that attempts to use certain standards, scientific Methodology, as proof of those beliefs-theories. Concensus to that 'belief' {Theory} is acknowledged when evidenced by the ability of Observational-testable-repetitively experimentation concords from readings of 'Physical' things, like atoms.
After that, as you admit you have "NO idea" of what I am saying, I'll re-iterate it, with some additions as to endevour to Make it clear to you
Lapin Dormant said:
No need of time variation in the laws of physics, simply the notation that what is Observed, 13.5 Billion Light years away, is also that NEW.
Means that what we currently see is "New" in the sense that it is the Beginning of the Universe from a Point of View of 'Time'.[/color]
Therefore perhaps operating on-in a manner that is yet not understood, from this perspective, as this perspective is where we have taken all of our Known {current} 'rules of physics' from, not from "there".
All of what we currently know is from Local Space respective of Having Tested the Properties of Physical Space, Light speed might be Different Just outside of the Local Vicinity, we have not yet, and can not, yet, test that. That would Change Many things.[/color]
Could be some {very} Slight Differences we don't realize just yet, the View has some obscuring factors to it, doesn't it.
In the one page, you referred me to, respective of the Conversation you had with Turbot, you mentioned that (1+z) that z=1000 and-or z=1200 would not be observed, here, locally, as it has become obscured, right?
That is what I am referring to, that, and some other 'notions' that apply.[/color]
Now, you
follow up with this
Lapin Dormant said:
What is there" {Liqid-solid-gas} is just as important, if not moreso, to "how it is functioning" as 'How it is functioning' is Based upon What is there!
SpaceTiger said:
This would be completely ignored by most scientists if asked to them. I'm willing to make an attempt at answering your question, but you need to be more specific. The one question that sort of makes sense is the following:
Please look, and read, what I had posted as a "quotation of Myself" Above, and your responce, as it is
not a question, it
is a Statement. That you cannot find the 'sense' in it, not my fault, also the Idea that you seem to think that you can respond in the stead of "
Most scientists, well rather assumptive of you, isn't it? perhaps
condescending again?
Lapin Dormant said:
Which chemical element(al) it actually is} expand it's r value, so does it's potential G/r value change, as well?
<Quite a partiallity of citation of what I had written, and with 'no name' ascribed, that is simply lazy.
SpaceTiger said:
If a cloud of constant mass and density expands to a larger radius, then yes, its potential energy increases (all of the elements expand in approximately the same way). If you mean the gravitational potential on the surface, then your formula is correct. If you mean the total potential energy of the cloud, then it's given by:
Sorry but I have emboldened your words as I now need Clarification from you, as you State that,
"If a cloud of constant mass and density expands to a larger radius, then yes," [/color] Please tell me how a Cloud can retain a CONSTANT DENSITY
and CONSTANT MASS
and expand,
in VOLUME? cause I am at a COMPLETE
loss as to how that works.
Then you tell me
"If you mean the gravitational potential on the surface, then your formula is correct." [/color] It would,
otherwise be amusing, but laughing at you now
would be rude, BECAUSE the "Formula" that you Claim I am Using, please remember, I asked you a
QUESTION, is not the Right answer, as increasing the radius of the Cloud will space out the Atoms and their gravitational Interactivety as per the measure of "Gravitational Action at a Distance" therefore the Activity dropping off at the SQUARE of the Distance, so the Proportionate Amount of Negation of the Superficial Gravitational Effect would be FOUR TIMES, or x 4 or Gm/4r
Thereafter, I had NOT queried you for this responce "
If you mean the total potential energy of the cloud, then it's given by:"[/color]
Not the Total Potential
energy of the cloud, but the measure of it's gravitational effect on any other given Mass, as measured from it's "surface" I HAD been Specific, as you seemed to be seeking.
SO, I 'googled' your equation, something like this u = (3/5)(GM^2/r)
and Found a website
Merlyn.demon.Co-Uk wherein under this title "Binding Energy" we find your equation derived as thus:
© Dr J R Stockton said:
The binding energy, U, of a sphere (of mass M and radius R) is the energy required to move all of its particles to infinity in different directions; it is given by U = 3/5GM2/R.
To calculate U, one can dismantle the sphere shell by shell and integrate; from the above, the energy dU required to move a shell of thickness dr and mass dm to infinity from a surface at radius r and local gravity g is given by dU = g r dm. We have g = GM(r/R)3/r2 and dm = M×3r2dr/R3 (volume increases thrice as fast as radius, relatively). Thus
U = ò0R [ GM(r/R)3/r2 × r × 3Mr2dr/R3 ]
U = 3 G M 2 / R6 × ò0R [ r4dr ] = 3/5 GM2/R
So we read what the gentleman writes and we find that he seems to think that;
"(volume increases thrice as fast as radius, relatively)" so I go to this website
W3 .aaamath. com to verify that I have the Correct formula for the calculations of the Volume of Spheres, do the Math using 4/3πr
3 such that, at an r value of 20 the answer works out to 33510.3216, and at an r value double that, 40 the answer is 33510.3216 which is an
eightfold change
in volume.
Can you see a problem there? {and My Apologies to Dr J R Stockton, just that}
Although I can clearly see that you can type well, as in this thread
CMB it would appear that typing the Words "I Do Not {currently} Know the Answer to that Question" doesn't seem to flow, from your mind, to your fingers, and it would seem that even the attempt at evading the Correct responce by pointing at a Power metric, was founded in Flawed Information, so it would seem that your not a thorough on your "references" either.
As you may be able to tell, saying "I didn't know" is what you were supposed to write in that last post.
If you would like to measure, as a "Dynamic measure" the 'Force' acting upon the parked car, then simply get yourself a Michaelson Morely Interferometer, and Point the "Two light pathways"
perpendicular to the Ground, you will get a
Quite Dynamic reading of the
Invisible force, of Gravity,
as it
is Acting.
Perhaps, after that, you will do me a small favor, and not respond, to anything, I write, any further.
Good thing I agreed "Not to" a priori.
LD
.....walks...off...head down...saddened...[/color]
so words won't do for you, interesting as that is the foundation of Mathematics, words.
please ) it became 40 Kms in Dia.
