Yet another gravitaional conundrum from ASHMAN

Dear Ashman!

With all due respect, it is very difficult for me to read your post. You are not using punctuation rules, and your spelling is... er, careless. I understand that English may not be your primary language, and so I give allowance. If so, please continue learning English! I want this reply to be constructive and encouraging!

On Topic:

I would maybe write it like this:

Hi folks! Those full-timers will know by now I have this unique facination with the Grand Unified Theory of the Universe. I do appreciate your thoughts. So here goes... The earth or a similar massive body has a gravitional constant for this particular moment in time based on mass (assuming that of course). Now as J. Vern wondered too I guess, what does happen at the center of that body? So, for the sake of the argument, and discounting mass introduced by the observer, there would be an exact center [of mass] where the mass of the body [is influenced by] equal effect from all axes. [Keep in mind] that, by introducing change in mass by influence of outside bodies, (moon, sun & planets et al) you would say that within that preassumed center would exist not so much a point, but a shere where XY&Z could shift according to the effect of those ouside bodies, resulting in an internal sphere that the point of negatemant would shift, thereby forming a sphere of ever shifting positions to maintan neutrality. That would make the Gravitational constant zero, hence eliminating it. Next, if that point was held at 0.0x' K above absolute zero but at that point motion has now stopped or slowed, [realize that] conductivity has increased to a magnitude equal to almost perfect, or zero resistance. Question is, all the bonds like Van der Waals, et al for a sec [?], but what would time become? How would it be measured or proven other than a comparison of sample exposed to the opposite (If that is even possible?). Think deep. All thoughts welcome! The ASHMAN!

OK, maybe there is method to your madness (of lack of grammar). I, in trying to decipher and correct (can't help it!) have a much better understanding of what you are trying to say!

That is not to say that what you propose is worthy of consideration.

I'll think on it - but not too much

Mike

Oh Yoda; You shame me. For it is I that should give heed to other than the lack of knowledge of true 'Queen's English'. For it is that, that is my primary language and yet with delibracy degrade it to entertain the speed and understanding of people that see content and do'ist thou not think primarily in pure thought or do you shoot the messanger? If nothing else it made you tHimka didnt its? DAh Good words non the less. By the by it is my typing that lacks the speed of my thought. Thanks ASHMAN

Dear Ash,

I am so shamed that I cannot type faster - I never learned to type!!!!

Therefore, when I am typing, I look at the keys instead of the screen and sometimes find small-cap sentence start with Caps everywhere else. However, something about me cannot tolerate misspellings or mispunctuations! It takes me forever to post!

I guess we all have our own little "things".

Mike

Hey Mike; No problem! Indeed we all do have a little bit of err in our ways, mine is the assumption that despite my spelling, speed is more important to me. Besides, my statement accomplished what I intended. After all, you new what I was talking about. I'll hang on to my errors in this relaxed forum and I shall con-tin-you to make my comments as light as possible. I think after all we are all here not to judge but just to escape perfection and let loose! The Ashman cometh and now goes away!

"If it's ugly and stupid, you can eat it!"

-----

That would definitely explain the cannibalism seen in some parts of Texas.

The importance of punctuation:------------------------------------------------- Exact same words, different punctuation, different meanings.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy--will you let me be yours? Gloria ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Gloria ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Nuf said:-------------------- HTRN

Mike,

Sorry to be an a$$ but a quick look over your corrected post turned up these...sorry

"Hi folks! Those full-timers will know by now I have this unique facination with the Grand Unified Theory of the Universe. I do appreciate your thoughts. So here goes... The earth or a similar massive body has a gravitional constant for this particular moment in time based on mass (assuming that of course). Now as J. Vern wondered too I guess, what does happen at the center of that body? So, for the sake of the argument, and discounting mass introduced by the observer, there would be an exact center [of mass] where the mass of the body [is influenced by] equal effect from all axes. [Keep in mind] that, by introducing change in mass by influence of outside bodies, (moon, sun & planets et al) you would say that within that preassumed center would exist not so much a point, but a shere where XY&Z could shift according to the effect of those ouside bodies, resulting in an internal sphere that the point of negatemant would shift, thereby forming a sphere of ever shifting positions to maintan neutrality. That would make the Gravitational constant zero, hence eliminating it. Next, if that point was held at 0.0x' K above absolute zero but at that point motion has now stopped or slowed, [realize that] conductivity has increased to a magnitude equal to almost perfect, or zero resistance. Question is, all the bonds like Van der Waals, et al for a sec [?], but what would time become? How would it be measured or proven other than a comparison of sample exposed to the opposite (If that is even possible?). Think deep. All thoughts welcome! The ASHMAN!

OK, maybe there is method to your madness (of lack of grammar). I, in trying to decipher and correct (can't help it!) have a much better understanding of what you are trying to say!

That is not to say that what you propose is worthy of consideration.

I'll think on it - but not too much

Mike"

Hi Rick

No need to be sorry. When I looked at my post the next day I freaked! I think I was trying to get the gist of what he was trying to say and focused more on content rather than spelling. In my defense, all of my original words were spelled correctly.

Anyway, I am embarking on a quest to see what the "Grand Unified Theory" is (and it may take me a long time!).

Cheers!

Mike

Hi Mikerho,

"I am embarking on a quest to see what the "Grand Unified Theory" is.."

There is more than one GUT. I will mention one in my next thread "State of the Big Bang Theory part 2" which will be posted in a day or two. Unfortunately I don't know the details of any.

Regards,

S

Hi Ashman, you wrote: "The earth or a similar massive body has a gravit[at]ional cons[t]ant for this particular moment in time bas[]ed on mass."

You are using the term "gravitational constant " wrongly. The term normally means G, the universal gravitational constant, defined by Newton as the constant of proportionality for the attraction between two bodies of mas m₁ and m₂ at distance r, i.e., F = Gm₁m₂/r².

What you describe at the center of mass of the body (or bodies) is not G, but the gravitational force or acceleration, which is zero at the center of mass, while G remains what it was - it's a constant.

Time is not dependant on temperature. It does however pass slower the deeper you go into a solid body like Earth, but only marginally so.

-J

Hi Jorrie,

Thanks for the link to Ashman's bio (for spelling). I really don't understand the physics of celectial bodies or relativity. I've read some, but don't (and wonder if I ever will) have a decent understanding of relativity. I promise to read "Relativity 4 Egineers". Maybe then I could ask some somewhat intelligent questions!

Mike

It's all made up on the fly.

It is definitely a good read... definitely easier than the work done way back in college. I would like to get (from Jorrie) the picture that goes with the front of the book (if possible).

Bill

Hi Ya Jorrie; I guess it worked a tad. Thanks for your input and as we all who follows the chase for the Grand Unified Theory of the Universe, we know, or hope, that perhaps we don't know yet. However just by asking that complex yet simple question, if it causes 1 child that will out live us to make it his/her quest, we will find the answer. It is that that was the purpose of my question. If that child can actually realize that there are still alot of things yet unknow, perhaps they will carry on where we leave off. Besides, I find fishing sometimes more entertaining as I grow old. Try it without out a hook. You may find what you catch is not what is in the lake but what is in your mind! ash.

Hi Ash, you wrote: "Besides, I find fishing sometimes more entertaining as I grow old. Try it without out a hook. You may find what you catch is not what is in the lake but what is in your mind!"

Great idea! I've used that trick a few times. If you are alone, nothing beats "what you catch ... in your mind"

-J

Jorrie said "Time is not dependant on temperature"

There seems to be different laws of physics at absolute zero, so are you absolutely sure?

Hi S, you asked: "There seems to be different laws of physics at absolute zero, so are you absolutely sure?"

No, obviously not absolutely sure!

I guess it depends on how you define time. If we define one second as per SI(*), I'm sure it remains constant everywhere in free space. However, your standard atomic clock might not agree at a temperature of absolute zero!

* I think it is the time it takes light to traverse 1/299 792 458.??? meter in vacuum, or something close to that.

-J

Hello Jorrie - as absolute zero cannot be reached even in principle (3rd law of thermodynamics), isn't this unanswerable? Though I suppose it does no harm to speculate...

Cheers....Codey

HI Jorrie. Yes, the laws of physics do continue to work very very near absolute zero. This environment is just a weird one, but physics works.

However, at these temperatures they use lasers for cooling not refrigerators. I read an article the other day where scientists are regularly creating Bose-Einstein Condensates at just a few nano-degrees above absolute zero.

Also, if motion stops at the center of gravity, why can't I get anything to stop at the center of my doughnut's hole?

Jorrie, this is a little off-topic from the main subject, but I must write before the thought evaporates: Does anyone have any idea how much matter is sucked into black holes in the known universe?Since the beginning? My primitive undertanding of physics states that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.If this still holds true, then the matter that goes into black holes must come out somewhere in our universe, possibly as dark energy or dark matter.Only dark energy could escape a black hole in any quantity (Hawking Radiation aside). Perhaps this is why the energy density of the univers stays the same,and the matter density is decreasing as it expands.? Your thoughts on this are highly valued. HTRN

Can I interject? Just take a minute...

You might want to take another look at Hawking radiation. Also, what makes you think that dark energy can escape a black hole any better than anything else? One last point, there is a school of thought based on relativity that states that aside from the star itself, nothing has as yet fallen into any black hole. If you had a "magical" telescope that could be trained on a black hole, you would see a vast frozen junkyard of stuff simply stuck in time. This is at the place where the gravitational field is so strong that time has slowed down so far (compared to our time) that the material bound for the hole hasn't had time to fall in yet according to our frame of reference.

Just a thought.

Hi vermin, you wrote: "... there is a school of thought based on relativity that states that aside from the star itself, nothing has as yet fallen into any black hole. If you had a "magical" telescope that could be trained on a black hole, you would see a vast frozen junkyard of stuff simply stuck in time. ..."

Correct, but as you probably know, this is a very old school of thought, long since refuted. The fact that one cannot observe that the matter is actually falling in from a distance does not mean that it does not fall in, first realized by David Finkelstein. (Wikipedia: "Finkelstein has also made contributions to general relativity. He was the first person to understand the black hole event horizon.")

-J

I will concede that, but you better take another look at Hawking radiation. In the predicted life of a black hole, Hawking radiation is supposed to reach an explosive peak, much like a super-nova, where the black hole's mass vanishes from the Universe, accompanied by a substantially large explosive amount of Hawking radiation.

The smaller the hole, the sooner the explosion is supposed to happen.

Hi vermin, you wrote: "... where the black hole's mass vanishes from the Universe, accompanied by a substantially large explosive amount of Hawking radiation."

Granted, but surely the mass is just converted into radiation (and some particles) and will not "vanish"?

That is unless you have referred to the hypothetical "Big Rip" epoch in the future, where all black holes may evaporate and the expansion rate may be so severe that the radiation is red-shifted "out of existence"!

-J

Granted, but surely the mass is just converted into radiation (and some particles) and will not "vanish"?

Yep. Radiation and a whole lot of particles.

Particles? What about participles? Dangling and otherwise? ------------------------- Adverbs and adjectives! Orbiting prepositions! Sentence outlines to infinity and beyond! Subjects being crushed into nothing by the force of nouns, and at the bottom of the hole, a super NOUNENTITY!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OH NO!!! A new universe created by an English Major!!!! The Pain, The Pain!! HTRN

Hi HTRN,

"Sentence outlines to infinity and beyond! " Buzz Lightyear's gonna gitcha for that one!

What's at the bottom of that hole, a collapsed SUPERNOUNVA?

Speculation by linguistic researchers using highly advanced algegrammar techniques suggest that there may be streams of pronouns being emitted and detected just outside the verb horizon. A recent article in the highly respected journal Scientific Adverbian lends a great deal of credibility to the research.

John

Pardon me, Buzz, what I meant to say was "to infinitives and beyond", to boldly go where no man has gone before, to seek out the elusive split infinitive, and to launch new forms of morphology.To find the smallest component of syntax, and to harness the incredible power of the word. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HTRN

Most excellent post!

I predict that the newly commissioned LCC (large comma collider) will prove, finally, that the elusive Period particle is really a sub unit of the commaly used everyday period (not to be confused with Martha's period however). Once LCC is running full strength and infinitives are collided with outfinitives, split infinitives are sure to be produced and will no longer be elusive.

Think about it HTRN, a whole new class of diphthongs could result! There may be gliding vowels everywhere. Phonetics will never be the same.

Perhaps somewhere out there beyond the Milky Word lie the bold sentences that will conclusively define the god-participle of syntax.

John

I really prefer the Dipped-G-String theory to dipthongs, which I feel enhances the Gliding Vowels hypothesis, and may reveal other syntax, such as the: !!! and ??? mark. The main difference I see between the Dipped G-String making a vowel produce a !!! or a ??? is directly related to the Critcal Mass of the supporting structure. Who really knows what may be revealed as we explore deeper and deeper into the Dipped G-String Theory? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as phone ethics, I feel they will always be as elusive as the SFI ( spam free internet). HTRN

What about the squinting modifier?

See post 61 above, as the squinting modifier may also have a place in the Dipped G-String theory, depending on the refraction angle, the clarity and depth of the water, and other factors unmentionable.----------------------- HTRN

VERMIN: A precaution must be used when applying the "Squinting Modifier" principle. Dark glasses must be used to prevent an excessive temperature rise in the subject being examined, or an explosive outburst of expletives may occur. The user of this information will assume all associated risks involved in conducting research on this matter.-------------- HTRN

And sitting in the center of it all... The Editor. That's why nothing ever comes back in one piece.

Hi HTRN, you asked: "Does anyone have any idea how much matter is sucked into black holes in the known universe? Since the beginning? "

No, I don't think anybody even knows how many black holes there are!

Matter entering a black hole will theoretically stay there (the black hole's mass grows), so nothing is lost. A very small amount of mass is apparently radiated as Hawking radiation due to particle-virtual particles pairs that get separated. This happens outside the event horizon, so the escaping particle does not cross that one-way membrane from the inside!

On dark matter: black holes are part of the dark matter of the Universe, but they are part of the minority: baryonic matter. The really troublesome dark matter is the non-baryonic type, also called "exotic dark matter". Nobody knows what they are.

Finally, the energy density of the universe does not quite stay the same.^[1] It is made up of various forms, most of which decreases in density as the Universe expands. It is only the dark energy that apparently remains at the same density. It also so happens that the dark energy apparently dominates today, but there is still ~30% "ordinary" energy that gets diluted.

-J

[1] You may want to have a re-look at my Blog entry: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/456/Cosmology-Equations-Part-4

For some reason, an expanding bubble rising thru a viscous liquid seems to model the expanding universe in a very real analogy.When the bubble breaks the surface, the "big rip"? . I cannot express the relationship mathematically,and do not know if anyone has ever studied the characteristics of rising bubbles, insofar as rate,area,volume, density, pressure, etc. It is just the instinct that what is writ small is also writ large, as in other examples of nature. Nature seldom does things only once, and successful forms and methods are exploited to the max. HTRN

Very interesting analogy.

John

StandardsGuy, Just caught your new avatar. Is that wild or what!!!

"Time is not dependant on temperature."

-----

Wanna bet? When was the last time you sat on a hot stove?

Good one.

Hey, Vermin. I just returned from your neck of the woods - well, sort of - last night. Was in L.A. for FreedomHEC. FreedomHEC is for Linux jocks and follows on the heels of WinHEC, which was held earlier in the week just down the street at the Staples Convention Center. We arrived at LAX on Thursday afternoon right on the heels of a bomb threat. The place was swarming with cops. Also discovered that regular gas goes for $3.69/gallon (here it's $2.89) and that L.A. is cold this time of year.

FreedomHEC is mainly for folks who write Linux device drivers. That's me (among other things - like posting flippant nonsense on CR4 threads. But somebody's gotta do it for no other reason than to keep these engineering types from getting too puckered at both ends. It's a never-ending job, but what's a mother to do?).

Welcome to California! It's $3.79 here in the Bay Area. Speaking of flying, too bad you couldn't have made it up here over the weekend. Moffet Field was hosting a B-17, B-24, B-25, and a B-19, along with the "Vomit-Comet." Rides were $400.00, but hey, who can put a price on a chance to be a belly gunner in a B-17?!

Sorry I missed it. But I have been weightless several times. Not in the Vomit Comet, but in a 1941 Taylorcraft flying over the foothills south of Denver. It's the weirdest feeling. I didn't care for the gees at the end of the dive, but the weightlessness was awesome.

-e

The only time I've experienced anything like it was riding a road race bike with really sticky, gum-ball tires. I got so low in a turn that my brain switched and told me the road was a vertical wall that I was driving on. It was really hard getting out of that without crashing the bike.

hello, Ashman.

I dont know anything about phisics but I read your message and thought about my father in law, who's very interested about unified theory.

May be you'd like to read what he has developed in www.josefigiacone.com.ar

Best Regards,

Alejandro

Hello Ashman,

I share your typing disability and have not learned to syncronize my thoughts with my hands ..yet. But here goes with my apologese to all the anal spell checkers out there.

Are you saying that at absolute zero, with out motion there would be no mass and with out mass there would be no time and with out time there is no space dx/d?. Or, are you saying something else and I have had too much caffine?

I got one for you. Gravity=Ether ???

No, because when I sniff gravity I don't pass out.

Then whats all that stuff thats holds everything together

Energy. Learn your physics.

What kind of Energy ?

It's all held together by the good wishes of ten thousand angelic minds sent here by God to help you and I kill all the infidels before they can sin a new.

OK, so exactly what makes you think it needs any help being held together? If one stops using Candyland logic where it comes to astrophysicists, maybe we'd get somewhere...

"Now, let see here... That thar pig over thar is fer bacon, and that cow's fer milkin', and that tractor thar is fer a ploughin', but I'll be danged if'in I kin figure out what them thar boson's is fer. Hey! I'm a startin' to de-solve! What it heck is holdin' all this together?! Dang!"

Then whats all that stuff thats holds everything together

-----

Last time I checked it was "Gorilla Glue."

We used to call it Gorilla Snot, but it's the same thing.

Yes, but have you considered that perhaps ether enhances gravity? Or am I thinking of nitrous oxide (hehe).

This was denied at the Michelson Morley Experiment in San Francisco 1887, and repeatedly ever since.

Then what controls the speed of Light ?

What??? Something CONTROLLING THE SPEED OF LIGHT? Do you mean to say "that affects" in stead of "controlling"?

"Then what controls the speed of Light ?"

-----

That little knob on your TV set.

this reminds me of the famous Altered Time Awareness Syndrome....by wzadruski et al 1878.

"this reminds me of the famous Altered Time Awareness Syndrome....by wzadruski et al 1878."

-----

Oh, yeah. I remember that. Seems like only yesterday...

Who the heck put a quarter in you tonight?! Wait, I'll get my drum set.

I think I'm feeling better. This does not bode well for CR4.