# question concerning gravity



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

Asked my physics teacher this long time ago in high school, never got an answer. 

Light (and thus anything else) takes about 8 minutes to get from the Sun to the earth. If the Sun went supernova and exploded at exactly 12:00, we would be fat dumb and happy here on earth, oblibious to our fate until 12:08 when it would hit us like che's frisbee in the park. Question: suppose somehow it were possible to instantly remove the Sun from our solar system. Boom... gone, no Sun, no mass, no nothing, empty space where it once was. What would happen to the planets (us)? Would we ISNTANTLY fly off into space on the tangent we were on when the Sun dissapeared because there would be no longer an gravitationl field to keep us in orbit? Or... would we continue in orbit for another 8 minutes, and THEN fly off on our own tangent. In other words... does that 8 minutes (due to the limitations of the speed of light) also work for gravity? Or would a better analogy be that gravity is like a string holding us to the Sun, and the instant the string dissapears, so would orbit holding gravity.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Feb 21, 2005)

Dave, have you been painting w/o ventilation again?


----------



## Crofter (Feb 21, 2005)

If You do have 8 minutes grace, what do you plan to do with it!


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

Crofter said:


> If You do have 8 minutes grace, what do you plan to do with it!


... don't think there is any way you could know you would have that 8 minutes. "What would you do if you knew the world would end in 8 minutes?"...sounds like an interesting thread in itself.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

skip the foreplay


----------



## Crofter (Feb 21, 2005)

I guess immediate reaction. Like the taut string breaking: probably screw up the weather too eh?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Feb 21, 2005)

Crofter said:


> If You do have 8 minutes grace, what do you plan to do with it!


----------



## Crofter (Feb 21, 2005)

What the heck eh? Glen couldn't post us a picture of what he would do with his 8 minutes!


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

Blaster's onto something . . . but off the top of my head I would think we would "INSTANTLY fly off into space on the tangent to the Sun." It seems to me photons of light act independently from the (as yet theoretical) gravitrons of gravity.

However, there are certain realms of existence where such universal laws of physics may not apply, such as near the point of singularity in Black Holes, non-parallel universes, and almost certainly, a small sector of real estate in northern Jersey.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

While my initial impression is that our planetary path would become a straight line, I don't think we'd survive the transition. &nbsp; There would surely be catastrophic changes in the earth's crust due to the sudden change of gravitational forces.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

Butch, do you think you could find a cowboy so quickly in LA?&nbsp; Would you skip the foreplay?


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

Chucky said:


> However, there are certain realms of existence where such universal laws of physics may not apply, such as near the point of singularity in Black Holes, non-parallel universes, and almost certainly, a small sector of real estate in northern Jersey.


As one who unfortunately has to work in some of those sectors of northern Jersey from time to time, I wholeheartely agree. The universal laws of physics sure don't apply to the crazy NY truckers and banshee yuppies who take pleasure in seeing how few inches they can put between their death machines and your vehicle, speeding down the highway doing 75, all the while yapping on their cell phones with their analysts or dispatchers.

I'm with glens, crofter and chucky, fly off into space instantly. And no don't think we would survive it, the heat generated by crust movement due to the loss of pull from the Sun would kinda melt everything that didn't survive the initial global cataclysmic earthquakes, and resulting tsunamis. Forget the quickie... you might have time to kiss her goodbye if that.


----------



## Newfie (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> skip the foreplay




Ok, and then about the other 7:30 I have left?


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> While my initial impression is that our planetary path would become a straight line, I don't think we'd survive the transition. &nbsp; There would surely be catastrophic changes in the earth's crust due to the sudden change of gravitational forces.



I don't think so, Glen. Recall the four fundamental forces: the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. Gravitational force is only 1 X 10 -38 times as strong as the strong force. Gravitational force only seems strong because of the extreme mass of the Earth, but it's actually a very weak force. And relatively speaking, the gravitational force between the the Earth and its crust I'm intuitively thinking is many times weaker than the gravitational force between the Sun and Earth. 

All you need is an almanac and knowledge of the inverse-square law to calculate the relative differences in forces, but since I'm now on my fifth Brooklyn Chocolate Stout, I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers. Let me know if I'm wrong. If so, I owe you a beer, mate!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> Butch, do you think you could find a cowboy so quickly in LA?&nbsp; Would you skip the foreplay?



Nah man, that's me with my rope and my cowboy hardhat, lighting up.

What homoerotic theme are you attempting to project on me? :alien:

This ain't the bippy hole.


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

woodshopThe universal laws of physics sure don't apply to the crazy NY truckers[/QUOTE said:


> LOL, Woodshop! How come everbody always singles out NY!
> 
> Anyway, I think you and Glen are wrong about the crust forces. I believe the forces would be negligible, but I could be wrong. Don't worry, Glen will crunch the numbers and tell us.
> 
> ...


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

I don't think the changes in the earth's crust would be catastrophic to the planet; just to us who ride on the crust.&nbsp; And I don't necessarily think our demise would be immediate.&nbsp; For some of us there would undoubtedly be time for decent foreplay.&nbsp; But not if we lived near ocean shores or major faultlines.

I don't guess I'm interested enough to crunch any numbers on this one...


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 21, 2005)

woodshop said:


> Asked my physics teacher this long time ago in high school, never got an answer.
> 
> What would happen to the planets (us)? Would we INSTANTLY fly off into space on the tangent we were on when the Sun disappeared because there would be no longer an gravitational field to keep us in orbit? Or... would we continue in orbit for another 8 minutes, and THEN fly off on our own tangent. In other words... does that 8 minutes (due to the limitations of the speed of light) also work for gravity? Or would a better analogy be that gravity is like a string holding us to the Sun, and the instant the string disappears, so would orbit holding gravity.



Wow! How did this question get here?
The current thinking is that gravity waves propagate at the speed of light. So if the sun Instantaneously disappeared, then 8 minutes later the earth goes off at a tangent to its orbit. Current theory is that gravity creates wrinkles in space that orbiting objects, such as the planets get trapped in. An analogy would be to place a bowling ball in the center of a trampoline. I'm not sure if I buy the wrinkle theory, it dosn't seem to explain the elliptical orbits of comets. I always thought it acted instantaneously like a string.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

I would think a purely circular orbit would be an anomaly.&nbsp; Ours around the sun isn't one.


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

Well, given:

2.0 X 10 ^ 30 Kg Sun
6.0 X 10 ^ 24 Kg Earth
Distance Sun to Earth = 149,600,000 Km
Distance center of Earth to crust = 6,380 Km

Based on this, the inverse square law gives the force of gravity between the Earth and its crust about 1,650 times greater than the force of gravity between the Sun and the Earth. So the effect of the Sun's gravity on Earth, should it instantly dissapear, would be negligible on the Earth's crust.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

10 ^ 4


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

Nitpicker.


----------



## glens (Feb 21, 2005)

But that might be a tad simplistic.&nbsp; As I understand it, the crust is floating on a liquid and the crust itself makes up at least a small portion of the mass you used to represent that of the earth.

I guess, though, in retrospect, if the crust were influenced enough by the sun to cause an interactive problem, it would do so twice every day as the earth spins each quarter turn.&nbsp; But the sun <i>does</i> influence the tides, so I don't know again...


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> I guess, though, in retrospect, if the crust were influenced enough by the sun to cause an interactive problem, it would do so twice every day as the earth spins each quarter turn.&nbsp; But the sun <i>does</i> influence the tides, so I don't know again...



I believe that the moon's tidal influence is twice that of the sun's. I didn't think that bodies in space effect the movement earths crust. I thought it was a combination of heat from radioactive decay and pressure.


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> But that might be a tad simplistic.? As I understand it, the crust is floating on a liquid and the crust itself makes up at least a small portion of the mass you used to represent that of the earth....


...interesting, i was getting my "heat would melt the earth surface and boil the oceans" theory from something I read in an Issac Asimov essay long time ago about what would happen if the moon would suddenly shift orbits from say a cosmic hit. Don't remember the specifics now... but idea was that earths crust is indeed floating, and is more fragile than one would think. Minor differences in gravity or pull from other bodies, and things would change catastrophically according to the article.. heat from friction would be generated and do us in... but then... its from the cobwebs of my brain, years ago.. facts get fuddled... I remember the "oceans would boil" line though.. thought that was pretty cool.


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

fpyontek said:


> I believe that the moon's tidal influence is twice that of the sun's. I didn't think that bodies in space effect the movement earths crust. I thought it was a combination of heat from radioactive decay and pressure.


well.. one thing I do know, the moons influence on the tides, is far more than twice the sun... Sun doesn't effect our tidal charts much at all, few times a year. Mostly moon


----------



## MasterBlaster (Feb 21, 2005)

Hahaha. It's all so silly.

Our asses would be grass.

So to speak..

:angel:


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

glens said:


> But that might be a tad simplistic.&nbsp; As I understand it, the crust is floating on a liquid and the crust itself makes up at least a small portion of the mass you used to represent that of the earth.
> 
> I guess, though, in retrospect, if the crust were influenced enough by the sun to cause an interactive problem, it would do so twice every day as the earth spins each quarter turn.&nbsp; But the sun <i>does</i> influence the tides, so I don't know again...



Yes, theory so often differs from observation because so many unforseen compounding factors that exist in reality can never be predicted experimentally. And these factors often exhibit a multiplying effect, whereby if two or more unforseen factors come into play in reality, they accentuate the distortion of the mathematical model the theory is meant to represent, and such a multiplying effect will so skew the results as they may render the conclusion completely untenable. 

But I'm confused by:


> it would do so twice every day as the earth spins each quarter turn



This is a complex tidal phenonemon that's influenced by a complex dynamic gravitational relationship between the Earth, Sun, and Moon. But I can't see how the Earth's crust (which is made of rock) will be significantly influenced by the almost insignificant loss of the gravitational force of the Sun.


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

sorry chuck... not to pick on the NY crowd, hey what can I say... I call 'em as I see 'em. I do a LOT of driving in the area, and bottom line is the more northeast I get, thus the closer to NY city and north Jersey cities, the nastier the driving gets. Just a factoid  I love days when I get to run down to south jersey, the pines... less hectic in general.


----------



## spacemule (Feb 21, 2005)

I fail to see the point in debating a hypothetical situation that cannot possibly happen. We might as well debate what would happen if all the known physics laws in the universe were changed or what would happen if our chainsaws began spinning around the chains instead of the chain spinning around them. Eh?


----------



## Chucky (Feb 21, 2005)

woodshop said:


> sorry chuck... not to pick on the NY crowd, hey what can I say... I call 'em as I see 'em. I do a LOT of driving in the area, and bottom line is the more northeast I get, thus the closer to NY city and north Jersey cities, the nastier the driving gets. Just a factoid  I love days when I get to run down to south jersey, the pines... less hectic in general.



Hear that, Woodshop. In NY's defense, when was the last time you drove in.....

Massachusetts!?


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

Chucky said:


> But I can't see how the Earth's crust (which is made of rock) will be significantly influenced by the almost insignificant loss of the gravitational force of the Sun.


Its only solid rock for a ways down, when you get into the "plastic" zone and molten stuff under pressure, thats when the "fragile floating" theory kicks in I think... but hey I havn't had enough beer to do this justice.


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 21, 2005)

woodshop said:


> ...interesting, i was getting my "heat would melt the earth surface and boil the oceans" ... I remember the "oceans would boil" line though.. thought that was pretty cool.



You may be thinking of when the sun dies. As it runs out of the lighter elements for the fusion process it will become a red giant. Thats when the oceans will boil away. Don't loose sleep about it though, thats 10 billion years from now.


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

Chucky said:


> Hear that, Woodshop. In NY's defense, when was the last time you drove in.....
> 
> Massachusetts!?


HA... drove THROUGH it about a year ago on way up to Canada.. hey, its all good chucky, there are crazy drivers everywhere. It's where you are from and what you are used to I found. A street smart kid from NYC would probably be lost and confused down in the pine barrens... wouldn't know how to act down there. Its what you're used to.


----------



## spacemule (Feb 21, 2005)

fpyontek said:


> You may be thinking of when the sun dies. As it runs out of the lighter elements for the fusion process it will become a red giant. Thats when the oceans will boil away. Don't loose sleep about it though, thats 10 billion years from now.



I question anything guaged by billions of years? How can we test the guage? Who's to say the solar system won't implode in our lifetimes?


----------



## woodshop (Feb 21, 2005)

fpyontek said:


> You may be thinking of when the sun dies. As it runs out of the lighter elements for the fusion process it will become a red giant. Thats when the oceans will boil away. Don't loose sleep about it though, thats 10 billion years from now.


..speaking of losing sleep... 5 comes early... interesting, but I gotta get some


----------



## Grande Dog (Feb 22, 2005)

Since there isn't any other gravitational influences near our solar system, and our solar system is traveling millions of MPH through space, I would think the planets and their moons would coalesce into a singular mass.







Grande Dog
Master Mechanic
Discount Arborist Equipment and Tree Care Supplies


----------



## Proj Eng (Feb 22, 2005)

I think that we'd see no immediate reaction, but then cooling beyond what we could take until everyone's a popcicle.
At the current rate we're going now though, wouldn't we be more likely to see California slide into the ocean? Even it is dirt mound by dirt mound?


----------



## glens (Feb 22, 2005)

I was going to ask how long you'd think that would take, GD, but there wouldn't be any meaningful time anymore: no years nor even days

One thing's for sure: we'd have to pump up the greenhouse gassing by quite a margin!


----------



## woodshop (Feb 22, 2005)

spacemule said:


> We might as well debate what would happen if all the known physics laws in the universe were changed or what would happen if our chainsaws began spinning around the chains instead of the chain spinning around them. Eh?


Well... from the chain's perspective the saw (or at least the bar), DOES spin around (or at least fly past) the chain. Of course I am assuming the observer on the chain has zero, or near zero mass.


----------



## Grande Dog (Feb 22, 2005)

Considering the direction of the earths rotation, and the speed at which the ocean would freeze. It would be more likely the ocean would slide away from CA. Since you're from lac land you know ice shift.







Grande Dog
Master Mechanic
Discount Arborist Equipment and Tree Care Supplies


----------



## woodshop (Feb 22, 2005)

Grande Dog said:


> Since there isn't any other gravitational influences near our solar system, and our solar system is traveling millions of MPH through space, I would think the planets and their moons would coalesce into a singular mass.


Grande... those outer gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn are so huge, that I think they themselves would have gravitational effects on the much smaller planets. I think eventually, if we dind't collide with another planet or one of its moons, we might be "caught" in Jupiter's orbit after eons of time (can't say billions or spacemule will trash me  ), or maybe even a really complex orbit around two gas giants that themselves are orbiting around each other. Would be an interesting computer modeling exercise to give to some astronomy grad student at MIT. Hey kid... take 9 bodies in space...


----------



## glens (Feb 22, 2005)

But those huge planets have very little density.

http://www.nineplanets.org/datamax.html


----------



## woodshop (Feb 22, 2005)

yes, a lot of gas, but the key word is a LOT of it... in the end isn't it the mass of a body that attracts other bodies to it, regardless of how dense that body is? Man I'm reaching back 35 yrs to high school physics here... running into lots of cobwebs.


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 22, 2005)

For those interested, NASA has an excellent web page explaining how and what celestial bodies effect tides on earth.
Fred
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast04may_1m.htm


----------



## glens (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes, that is an excellent link.&nbsp; I was surprised to read that the crust "tides" can reach a level of 8".


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 22, 2005)

glens said:


> Yes, that is an excellent link.&nbsp; I was surprised to read that the crust "tides" can reach a level of 8".



me too!


----------



## Proj Eng (Feb 23, 2005)

_"Considering the direction of the earths rotation, and the speed at which the ocean would freeze. It would be more likely the ocean would slide away from CA. Since you're from lac land you know ice shift."_

-Good point. I forget all the time about the balance of Nature. The more heat, the more counter cooling that takes effect. I wonder if the same would be true for super cooling.


----------



## Chopwood (Feb 23, 2005)

There is a good article concerning the theory of "gravity waves" on msn.com's space section right now. The speed of gravity and gravity waves are a part of Einstein's theorys that have not been solved.


----------



## buckduck (Feb 24, 2005)

You guys are all a bunch of pessimists. 

Actually, I think we would all be ok, so don’t do anything in those 8 minutes that you’d be terribly ashamed of afterwards. (perhaps MB should rethink that cowboy tryst thing) 
We shouldn’t have to worry about terrible cold right away. The earth itself will be a generator of heat for a while (albeit, if you’re an orange grower… better look for other work.). The current planetary system would suddenly be freed to race around together in the dark for a while. But after a period of time, Jupiter (who always wanted to be a star anyway) would most likely go about swallowing up matter (poor old Saturn) until it can ignite it’s hydrogen pile. 

If we play our cards just right, leave our coats on, and become adept or very lucky in our new ‘dodge-em’ environment, we could position ourselves in another, closer orbit around our new star.

Me... for all that new growth that'll be happening when the lights come back on, I'm keeping my 038, 066 and some boric acid (we'll need something to control those darn roaches)


----------



## Molecule (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm going to really take it in the ear on this one--but just to be polemical--gravity does not exist, by itself that is, as for example is presumed by the fishbowl-think involved with the inverse square so-called "law." Not that I know what gravity is, nor should anybody "Believe-in" any physicist who says he or she knows what it is either, but ...

Kepler asked the same question back around 1600, when he effectively asked the question: How does the planet Earth know, at any instant of time "x" (in the domain of this question, it being a major philosophical flaw to imagine instant "x" to differ from a prior or subsequent instant "y") ... how does the planet earth "know" to "how much" to increase or decrease its velocity (which is a significant percentage of the speed of light (enough to "bend" apparent ray of light by 20" of arc ($400 of 1940's survey equipment being able to now measure that to 5% or 1" arc)), and at the same time, change its direction by a different angular amount, at each instant. At every "instant" along its elliptical path, the velocity of the Earth changes in a totally non-constant way, and the angular deflection of the path also changes, in a totally non-constant way. This is the problem of the elliptical differential and elliptical integral, which Kepler asked future mathematicians to work on, and which they have still not solved.

The Earth's orbit is not "driven" by an inverse-square law, as would be presumed by Newton's theft of Kepler's discovery of a higher concept of gravity. The orbit is more likely driven by a "motus," or in the Leibnizian calculus, a monad, or kind of soul. Thus, 8 minutes before a gravity wave "arrives" from the spinning Sun to the Earth, the Earth had already known 8-minutes ago, for example 8-minutes before you saw this dot (.), what change in speed was required (having pased perihelion, we are now decreasing in speed at precisely the correct amount (8-minutes before the gravitational cops could arrive to "administer" the inverse-square law) and we already knew how much to change the angular deflection (on the first of spring we will begin to increase daily angular deflection along the elliptical path.

So, how does the Earth know how much to change its velocity, and how much to change its angular path, when the gravity wave from the Sun is already arriving 8-minutes too late to have any effect. And this 8-minutes is also not a constant.

So Kepler says, maybe something else is organizing, and motivating, the solar system. (Incidentally, sub-atomic physicists also use Kepler's formalation for gravity - equal area for equal time - to analyze the paths of electrons. Unlike the eye-sticking Newton, Kepler's concept of gravity applies to subatomic domain as well as to astronomic domain.)

So, here's what Kepler observes ---

(a) the orbits of the planets are elliptical (not circular)
(b) some orbits are "thick" (have a high eccentricity) others are "thin" have eccentricity nearly equal to 1.
(c) if you visualize the orbits of the planets in our solar system as "bowls," each of the bowls will have a thickness which is proportional to the "thickness" (aphelion radius less perihelion radius) of the elliptical orbit.
(d) if you then "nest" the bowls in the fashion of the solar system, you find that to the 3rd decimal of precision (as I seem to recall my re-computation of Kepler's model using modern data) the empty spaces between the bowls are not random. At each inter-planetary space between two planetary orbits, the ratio of the aphelion radius of an inner planet to the perihelion radius of the next outer planet, is, to the ~3rd decimal, equal to the ratio of the insphere radius to the outsphere radius of a Platonic Solid! (This was the first half of Kepler's first major work, "Mysterium Cosmographicum.")
(e) in the same work Kepler, then examines the harmonic ratios of the daily angular velocities of each of the planets (at perihelion, daily angular velocity is highest, at aphelion, daily angular velocity is lowest). Hold on to your a$$ guys ... Kepler found that not only are the spaces between the planets regulated by a quantization of space by the Platonic Solids, but ... the eccentricities of the planetary orbits are such that the ratios of the perihelion angular velocities to the aphelion angular velocities are also the ratios of the musical scales, in the modern 12-note diatonic system. That is that (quoting loosely from Kepler's Introduction to Book III of Harmonice Mundi) ... that in His *administration of the solar system, God has quantized the orbits of solar system, according to the *same principles of harmonics and music, by which he also quantized the universal and individual human minds, in its appreciation of music. (note to Space Mule: it is on this point that the Marxist bankers who have taken over our system of government, and the one-eyed Marxist truth-tube we call TV which has taken over our ... err ... culture, go absolutely ape!)

Here are some early jpgs of a virtual model (written in by me VRML) of Kepler's original plan for a model ... In the model, the thicknesses of the bowls represent the thickness of the planetary orbits.

(BTW This little 8-minute question also blows apart all of our modern interpretations of Einstein's "Theories of General/Special Relativities" For example, for special relativity, we are taught the lie that Einstein was wondering whether a survey rod would get smaller at higher or lower speeds, and crap like that. Einstein's research into special relativity specifically and explicitly addressed the question, "Why does a cow magnet, when standing upright in a bowl of mercury, spin, when the current of a battery is passed through it?" All of a sudden, the same 8-minute problem arises, but on a smaller scale, and not with "gravity" as for the solar system, but rather with "electricity" and "magnetism" as for spinning magnets and electrical currents. That is that, just because electricity is passing thru a magnet, that is in and of itself, not reason enough for it to want to spin. So, why does it start to spin? What's making it do that? Kepler proposed that the Earth was guided in its orbit around the Sun, by the rapid *spinning of the Sun.)

Whew!!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Mar 19, 2005)

buckduck said:


> (perhaps MB should rethink that cowboy tryst thing)




Trust me, it's been re-thought... :alien:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Mar 19, 2005)

And Molecule beat me to the answer I was gonna say...


----------



## Molecule (Mar 19, 2005)

In case anyone is interested, here's some backup (it's original work by me) along with some more pictures of my VRML model, expanded out to Neptune ...


----------



## woodshop (Mar 19, 2005)

TreeCo said:


> Dan (did I read too much Asimov in my youth?)


Dan I started reading Asimov when stationed in Germany in the Army on guard duty (I know, you're supposed to be guarding something)... and I am STILL reading his essays and stuff today. Both fiction and non-fiction. Got me interested in science, physics, but mostly math.


----------



## woodshop (Mar 19, 2005)

Molecule said:


> At every "instant" along its elliptical path, the velocity of the Earth changes in a totally non-constant way, and the angular deflection of the path also changes, in a totally non-constant way.


Molecule, interesting post... enlighten me though on this point. I agree at every instant the path is dynamic as you say, but isn't it still very predictable? We know from one instant to the next exactly where the earth will be in the path, don't we? I thought we HAD to, or we could never send a spacecraft out into space, like to the moon, and get back to the exact right spot at the exact right time.


----------



## woodshop (Mar 19, 2005)

TreeCo said:


> Did you read I. Asimov, his autobiography? It was good. I haven't read him in a while but I could still learn a lot from him.
> Dan


no... would be a good read I bet. To say the man was prolific would be a gross understatement. He had a way to explain complex math concepts for ex, in simple dummy terms that guys like me could grasp. Truly sparked my interest in math and science.


----------



## Molecule (Mar 19, 2005)

yea, I agree. Classical mechanics are very useful, esp. for solving exactly those kinds of problems, e.g. necessary problems involving the "five senses" of our continued existence. But Classical mechanics are sort of limited to domains of "predictabililty," "repeatability," etc. The harder and more fun question, is Why?

I'm intriged by Kepler's idea that God's administration of both the solar system and the creative human mind is based on the same principles of harmonics and least action (Platonic Solids). Kepler then provoked Leibniz to then devise a calculus which proposed that the integral was inseparable from its differential, as the integral and differential of a physical process are "managed" by the same "Why-question." In Classical mechanics, if you are given this "observational formula" for an integral, then you apply "rules" to generate the differential, withouit any necessity that the integral and differential represent two perspetives to one identical physical process.

When persued further, the why question confronts me, anyway, with really huge and somewhat terrifying idea ... Yipes! Beauty exists!

Classical mechanics, like wondrous mechanical fishes each carrying 100 highly accurate nuclear bombs, can be useful, but they can't offer guidance to the childlike question -- ok cool, our heros can drop $1million bombs from 40,000 feet right into a chimney on the mountainside, and blow a $40 mud hut to smitherines, but ... why?

(For those brave Americans who would argue, because there's this bearded Mickey Mouse, a cowardly creep who spends all day hiding in caves in Afghanistan, who so so terrifies all American men, so we better start blowing up a whole bunch of people fast, I would ask them to consider the necessity that when God designed the human soul, He designed it in such as way that our children or grandchildren will, of necessity of Beauty as one of His forces of nature, eventually be smarter than we are ... that is that no matter how smart we are, or, no matter how cleverly contrived and well concealed our financial and political frauds against our own children are, they *will eventually figure out that we, or rather the Marxist bankers who have ruined especially the men of this country, since 1913, have been running an organized crime of bank and currency fraud against the sovereignty of our nation and the economic reproducability of our children's future families. Why was it necessary that God design the human soul that way? Classical mechanics can't answer that question -- just like a harmonic-least action approach could never predict where a space module would land when it returned to Earth.)


----------



## Brumalis (Mar 24, 2005)

Hi. General relativity helps us understand the nature of gravity. It is not so much that there are gravitational "forces" that pull things together. Instead, the presence of matter (mass) introduces deformations in the fabric of space-time. These deformations, like when you stand on a trampoline, affect everything around them. 

Stand on the trampoline, and roll a marble along, and you'll see the marble's path bend according to the stretch of the fabric. Well, we live in this fabric of space-time, and every piece of matter in existence (and some pure forms of energy as well, but that's another story) affects it. The sun, being so incredibly massive, affects it an awful lot!

Now, if the sun suddenly disappeared, we would *begin* to feel an affect right away! Why? Because nothing has to "travel" to us in order to feel the sun's affect. As soon as the sun was gone, the fabric of space-time would begin to un-deform (due to the removal of matter), but would take a bit of time in order to fully renormalize itself. There would most certainly be all kinds of "gravitational turbulence"! Like pulling a bow string, once you let it go, it doesn't just snap back to its original position and stay put -- it wiggles back and forth for a while.

So, why not 8 minutes? Hard to say exactly how long it would take, since I'm not too familiar with the full mathematics of general relativity. But certainly, if you and your friend are standing on a trampoline, and your friend jumps off, you'll start to feel an effect *before* the trampoline has finished fully recovering from the loss of your friend's mass.

To answer Molecule's point, physics is a collection of observations about the world. No credible physicist would say that the universe obeys the laws of physics. Rather, what we see is that the universe does indeed behave in regular patterns, and that physics is the study and categorization of those patterns. The Earth, or anything else, does not "know" how to change its velocity. It is like water flowing downhill -- the water always flows in the direction of steepest available descent. Should we conclude that water "knows" the mathematics of gradients and vector fields? No, that is our own perspective getting in the way! Ancient engineers were able to build the trebuchet (like a catapult), which was the ultimate castle busting machine, with completely no knowledge of Newtonian mechanics! How? Because we are able to apply concepts without having to understand the theory behind them. Anyone can turn on a light switch and get light. You don't have to study electrodynamics. Likewise, isn't it enough to simply observe that water *does indeed* flow downhill? Then, armed with that observation, we can hypothesize about the nature of water, its properties, how other things may also behave in vector fields, and so on. It is continual application of past observation that drives our theoretical understanding, but sometimes new theories can encourage us to look in places or for things we would have never thought of before.

Cheers.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Mar 24, 2005)

Excellent first post, Brumalis!


----------



## jason j ladue (Mar 24, 2005)

dont look now, but i think i just ripped a hole in my space-time contiuum.
Hey blaster. i think the marlboro man should be _wearing _ his saddle w/ a chainsaw hangin off it, 80' up a spar and a big old chunk getting craned out while he's lightin' one up. whatya say. how bout a little sidecareer as a spokesperson for ya.


----------



## woodshop (Mar 25, 2005)

Brumalis said:


> Now, if the sun suddenly disappeared, we would *begin* to feel an affect right away! Why? Because nothing has to "travel" to us in order to feel the sun's affect. As soon as the sun was gone, the fabric of space-time would begin to un-deform (due to the removal of matter), but would take a bit of time in order to fully renormalize itself. There would most certainly be all kinds of "gravitational turbulence"! Like pulling a bow string, once you let it go, it doesn't just snap back to its original position and stay put -- it wiggles back and forth for a while.


Thank you Brumalis... that is so far the clearest, and most believable explanation I have gotten from anybody, and I have been asking this question of people on and off for about 35 years. I have to dust off my Asimov book on relativity and re-read it, dig into that a little further, just for fun. This is of course a rather useless exercise if we assume the world to be as we currently know it. The Sun could not instantly disappear. But introduce other dimensions for example, and for all we know literally anything at all could happen. Including massive Suns appearing and disappearing in an instant. Talk about creating some gravitational turbulence Brum... imagine a Sun somehow instantly appearing say between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Would be a good question to ask of a college physics class how this would effect the orbits of the planets. And... would the two Suns eventually gravitate into one another and either collide as we see some galaxies doing as we speak, or would they eventually form a double star? Either way, hope I'm long gone by then.


----------



## Locoweed (Apr 8, 2005)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html


----------



## Molecule (Apr 9, 2005)

Should the predicates of our minds, the soft presumptions of our thinking ... also be examined in regard of Einstein's one-way mathematical "instruction" for how "general relativity" works? or for how Light works? or how Darkness works?

Consider the problem of "knowing" the speed of light ... as we make our proclamation ... now we "know" the speed of light, as was done during the Renaissance for example by observing the change in perceived harmonics of the moons of Jupiter at opposition to Earth versus conjunction to Earth, might we not also ask, what were our geometric presumptions upon which the computation depended. How for example, did we know that the speed of darkness was zero? Would it not be the same as saying, the North pole of a magnet communicates its influence upon a South pole at the speed of light, and simultaneously the South pole of that same magnet communicates in the reverse direction to the North pole at a speed of zero?

Or, how long does it take the gravitational wave, or whatever "it" e.g. the communication between matters, is, to travel from the planets to reach the Sun, and thereby change the Sun's behavior? (Or, are we, because we are so used to being politically impotent and little people, are we to similarly allow "little things in nature" to go "ignored?") Does "more" of a gravity wave travel from the Sun to the Earth, than travels from the Earth in the other direction, to the Sun? So, eventually, we are confronted with the question ... if a gravity "wave," or, if a some manner of physical communication starts from the Sun and travels to the Earth--to change the Earth, and simultaneously a "return" communication starts from the Earth and travels to the Sun--to change the Sun, that is that "a" gravity wave really has two parts, each of which travels in opposite directions, then all of a sudden we find ourselves in a domain which is regulated more by harmonics than by exchanges of brute force.

From the plasma sphere of the Sun, to the outer planets with regular orbits, the ratios of the interplanetary distances, e.g. the empty "space" between the perihelion-to-aphelion disks of the planetary orbits, are to within roughly one percent of error, the ratios of the insphere to outspheres of the Platonic solids? Why? How did this happen? It is possible to generate a "general theory of relativity," while specifically ignoring harmonics as mere happenstance. (Crudely, treating a 100% error as a unity probability, a 1% error off of perfect match as a 1/100 probability, and a perfect match as an impossibility, then, the probablilty of the ratios of the interplanetary spaces just matching the insphere to outsphere ratios of the Solids, is on the order of 10 to the 200th power, e.g. roughly a 1% error twenty time in a row.) To ignore that is scientific fraud! Should we join with Einstein in this fraud, by saying that only light has speed, so that we may thereby "compose" (against God) a "one-way theory of general relativity?" How do we ignore this easily demonstrated observation? (See my pdf file above). Franklin's American Philosophical Society, still thriving in Philadelphia, later to become the founding fathers of America, were all readers of Kepler, many quoting him on the front's pieces of their writings. They were well aware of Kepler's work. When did we have it eradicated from our education?

Add to that the observation the ratios of the angular velocities of the various planets at perihelion and aphelion (e.g. the ratios of the "average daily motions" of the planets when they are near to the Sun in their orbits, versus when they are far from the Sun) are the same as the ratios of the 12 tones in our musical scales. Because this musical scale, of which a first approximation can be constructed by simple application of a 1+1/12 simple harmonic ratio, can also be be constructed from spiral action on a conical surface, might we not also ask, are the planetary orbits also regulated by a form of spiral action, such that the ratios of the speeds of the planets are the ratios of the 12-step musical scale? That's also true to within a few percent. Why did Einstein ignore this, in the one-way theory of "General Relativity?"

Is there any similarity in the manner in which Einstein denied the possibilty of harmonics as a force in the universe, and eradicated Kepler for us, as well as the scientific members of Franklin's American Philosophical Society, and thereby gave us a "one-way" view of general relativity, and the manner in which the materialistic frauds of Marx (both Kerry and Bush are Marxists, once you understand who Marx really was, and if you voted for either one, you voted for a Marxist!) have suppressed the beautiful writings and ideas of Hamilton, regarding the necessity of the sovereignty of nations over the emissions of their currencies and the Wall St.-Federal Reserve-LBO-debt frauds which eventually matriculate into new currency?

Arghh! it's just too early ... because, now, I'm just getting started ...

When you are up in a treetop, and looking at a mountain top far away, ask yourself this question re the speed of light and the speed of gravity ... How did that ray of light (which may be a false predicate but nonetheless ... ) how did that ray of light from that mountain top over yonder, know, the least time path from the mountain to my eye? (It has been extensively proven that light does not travel in "straight" lines. It bends! In space, it bends by gravity ... and in air, it bends by changes in the density of air. Geodetic surveyors see this effect when trying to "get" the target to hold still when making a sight along the edge between a hot road and a cool forest. The apparent location of the target is jumping all over the place, because the light entering the instrument is coming from different directions. Why? because, at any given instant, the light entered the instrument from the dirction which took the least time to go from the target to the gun. So consider any one of those particular rays ... how did that ray *know* ahead of time (the time requird to go from the target to the gun) to start off in this direction, and bend left like this and right like that, so as to zoom into the gun at a particular angle, such that the path, when it was all done, was the path of least time? When it began its journey, how did that ray of light know *ahead of time* that it would have to make exactly those bends, so as to arrive at the darkness of your eye, in the least amount of time?

What then, is the definition of time, upon which we will then conclude the one-way speeds of light, and of gravity? Can time be defined in such as way as to exclude harmonics ... when in fact, everything around us is a kind of harmony? What then is the definition of time, if a billion or so years ago, light from the galaxy mentioned in locoweed's link, started off, and over the course of a billion or so years, at each instant that it replicated itself along its path, it chose to change the angle of its direction, albeit ever so slightly as reported by the deflection of Saturn, so that it would take the least-time path, from a Billion years ago, to arrive at the objective lens of the scientists who made the study?

For those who would prefer the illusion of Freedom to reality of Harmony, where then would you run, that you might be free from God's love?


----------



## Treeman14 (Apr 9, 2005)

That's beautiful, Mole. Gimme more! :angel:


----------



## Chainsaw Master (Apr 17, 2005)

woodshop,....Brumalis has got the theory right....you'd have 9 planets flying off in the directions they were going, at the precise moment the sun disappeared. They would travel in a straight path until it encountered another gravity well. As long as earth did not collide with any other planets, or bump in to the moon, in the initial release, it would still keep spinning, (keeping things pretty much the same here on earth) it would cool off quickly and be dark as hell, flying threw space,....frozen.

Eventually we'd end up in a comet like orbit around another star. There are comets that take tens of thousands of years to complete an orbit around our sun, due to their high velocity. The velocity and mass of the earth would carry it a long ass ways threw the galaxy, it would take a massive star to catch us in its gravity well.


----------



## Mange (Apr 17, 2005)

Molecule.
I do not know about you, but I need to go lay down a while now, I got hurt by all that at once  

Impressive minds in this thread though.


----------



## Mange (Apr 17, 2005)

Molecule, check your PM's.


----------



## Molecule (Apr 17, 2005)

The problem with our modern concepts of "gravity wells" and etc. is simple linear thinking.

Consider the possibility that if the first law of physics is anything other than that the universe is a neg-entropic phenomenon, that is that the universe is organized by a creative intent, or design or whatever, which is neg-entropic in effect, then the so-called "laws" of physics as they are derived from that eentropic presumption, are flawed, ab initio.

If we are going to say we know from a mathematical formula what might happen to the planet Earth were "gravity" to disappear, might not we also notice that we have failed to ask, how did this notion of gravity "guide" the beginning of the planet Earth in its orbit ... how was *this linear idea of gravity functioning, such that the planet Earth *was created, in its current orbital location?

The existence of the Earth as an organized planet, and not as a mush of dust tending to spread out in space, is proof of the existence of a neg-entropic force or desire which is organizing everything in the universe, including the planet Earth, including the bones in our skeletons. Gravity alone, is not an organizing force ... but if we take out gravity alone, would not the organizing force remain.

And this is a problem with Newton's linear push-me-pull-me "action at a distance" concept of gravity. It basically starts with the entropic assumption. But, the universe is provably organized by a neg-entropic desire ...

As an analogy, start with a bathtub of water, and pour a few ounces of dark blue ink into it. The ink will tend to spread out. The concentrated ink will dilute, and the 100% dilute water will become contaminated (for want of a better phrasing), and turn a light transparent blue This tendency of concentrated things to spread out in space, is an example of entropy. Nature abhors a vaccuum. Concentrations tend toward ... equality (mush). "Heat," initially created from the lie of the so-called "big bang," is separated from the fantasy of a pre-existing "cold," tends to move toward the cold, producing "available energy" until everything is warm, and then there is no more "available" heat left in the universe, and the universe dies warmed over. Bah!.

Consider the very bones in your body, which are supporting you as you read this. You drank milk, or consumed vegetables which had a dilute concentration of calcuim in them. And the calcium you injested, went from a dilute state in the milk or in the vegies, and ... hold on to your a$$, it did not dilute, as the second law of thermodynamics would require, but it ... aggregated, and formed the bones of your fingers, and your spine and etc. How did the calcium know how to go from a dilute state, in the milk, to a concentrated state, in your bones. This would be the same thing as pouring ink into a bathtub, and having the ink dyes concentrate themselves into a skeleton. Your very existence, is living proof of a negentropic intent in the design of the universe.

Similarly then, supposed the planets start out as whirling dust ... why, and how then did they organize into spheroidal planets. Why would one particle of dust whirling in space decide to adhere to another, and start to form an array of planets, whose orbits are timed by demonstrable harmonic properties, and spaced by demonstrable geometric properties. Like the entropic ink in the bathtub, shouldn't the space dust have tended to disperse into space ... what is the opposing tendency which created the aggregations, at intervals of orbits such that the orbits would be connected to the musical scales. Clearly, there is another force which is organizing the universe, which is acting as conpanion to "gravity." How, then can we say that this companion force, or design intent, will dissappear, if God were to suddenly make gravity disappear? (Which is an interesting problem, because IMHO Man, because of his increased technological understanding of this gift, will eventually have the ability to negate gravity, but unfortunately, God will never be able to do that ... how did God give to Man, a power which God himself does not have, that is the power of choice? This is the fundamental paradox of the trinity. God gave to Man the power of choice, and anyone who thinks that God retained to himself a power of choice, e.g. that God can choose at any time to to do good or to do evil, or to turn on gravity, and then to arbitrarily turn it off, has not yet contemplated, in prayer, What is the power of God's thinking. Trust me when I say this, there is no place on this universe where you can escape from God's love, so unbounded is His gift to his only Son.)

So we have this spatial dust, organizing itself into planets, and at the same time creating an interval of "space" between them. The equivalent would be that you pour ink in to the bathtub, and the ink does not disperse ... but it aggregates into little spheres of ink dye. Not only that, but the little inkballs also "orbit" at harmonically organized intervals, and space themselves apart such that the ratios of the spaces between them are the ratios of the Platonic solids.

Consider this same problem, going from the astronomic domain to the sub-molecular domain. (I chose the name Molecule, not because of this ... but because I discovered I must have a chainsaw Molecule in my heart--a discovery which I feel I owe in part to gypo, much as Ampere, a student influenced by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, discovered that there was an indivisible magnetic molecule in iron, Fe, which creates electricity. There is just some kind of happiness which happens when a chainsaw is running right ... so God must have put a chainsaw molecule in my heart ...) In the sub-molecular domain, the elements of the periodic table are not all created in equal abundance. So, let's look at the implications of this. It just so happens that the principles of Kepler's discovery of universal gravity, that is gravity as a part of a larger neg-entropic organizing force, also apply in this domain.

Is it mere co-incidence that Oxygen in the most plentiful molecule in space. It makes up 2/3 rds of the molecules in the Earth's crust. Oxygen is molecular number 8, exactly the number of vertices on a Platonic solid known as the cube. Then, the next most plentiful molecule in space is silicon, Si, molecular number of 14, which makes up roughly 1/5th of the total number of molecules. Thus, Si represents the completion of a 6-cornered octahedron which envelopes the 8-cornered cube of oxygen. The next most plentiful molecule in space is iron, Fe, molecular number 26, being roughly 1% of the atoms in the space. Is it mere happenstance, that iron is exactly 12 additional vertices up on silicon, 12 being the completion of a Platonic solid called the icosahedron. Continuing, with the same sequence of Platonic solids as Kepler used for the spacing between the orbits of the planets, we have palladium, Pd, atomic number 46, being 20 vertices up on the atomic number of iron, and this also being completion of a nexted Platonic solid called the dodecahedron.

So, if we find that the space between the orbits of the planets can be represented by a nesting of the Platonic solids, and if we find that the most stable (plentiful) elements of the periodic table can be represented as completions of the same nesting of the Platonic solids, must we not also include this observation in our contemplations of the beautiful and playful question, what would happen to the orbit of the planet Earth if God were to suddenly turn off gravity? As part of our question, would we not also have to ask Him to turn off the part which which quantized the orbital velocities according to principles of a 12-step diatonic musical scale ... might not was also have to request that He turn off the part that organized the space between the orbits according to the geometric ratios of the Platonic solids?

I mean, why as easy questions of God?


----------



## Treeman14 (Apr 17, 2005)

Ok, Mole. Very interesting reading. 

Couple of questions.

1. What if I pour oil into the hypothetical bathtub instead of ink? Hmm. I believe it would coagulate into little spherical "planets."

2. I thought hydrogen was the most abundant element, followed by helium. (Its been 2 years since my last chemistry class, so please correct me if I'm mistaken.)

3. As for God not having the ability to "choose", i strongly disagree. God "chooses" to hold the universe, including the orbits of the planets, solar system, and galaxies, together. He can likewise choose NOT to hold them together. God cannot choose to do evil, everything God does is good. 

I'm intrigued by the relationship between the elements, the orbits of planets, and harmonics. I wish I had the time and energy to investigate this further. Someday, perhaps.

This is good stuff, keep it coming.


----------



## Mange (Apr 18, 2005)

This is a very fun thread, a bit of brain exercise.

My first thought is about the suns gravity as it disappears we instantly fly out in a strait line until/unless other gravity fields start to attract us.
I doubt we survive more than hours without the sun.

The moon is held in it's orbit by our gravitation, so colliding with it is not likely.

Another thing that comes to mind is the religious aspect of things, as God and a all mighty ruler and like that.
I truly believe we are made from the same stuff, molecules and genetic codes etc.
How all started I am not sure, but I do not think we have the ability to grasp and understand it yet.
We have more evolution ahead of us, I think the capacity of our brain is minimally used as of now.
A few thousand years from now man will look back and think we are primitive, as we do about the stone age.
This is just the beginning. To think anything else is for me completely pointless. The question most is afraid of is Why!!!!!!!
That is the best question I can think of, it brings knowledge and enlightenment.
To think we understand all or even can understand all is not correct. We lack the ability to process all questions we have, but the question it self is more important then the answer. If there was no one to ask there would be no progress at all, and that must be the reason for everything, progress, not money or houses, the continuance of man. If this was a common goal instead of wealth and greed, we would be far better of, I think.
What can you take with you when light is out, the wallet? The house? If there is a soul, and the mind is a continuous thing, then that is the priority, mind evolution!
Raises, property, even borders, who cares. As long as there is progress and we do not create an impossible chance for survival of man, I think we do good.


----------



## Molecule (Apr 18, 2005)

*if there's 200 volts between your nose and your toes ...*

this problem, of how molecular matter was distributed throughout the universe, is an annoying one ... since it's counter-intuitive to the Newtonian concept of gravity.

Why are the stars mostly lighter atoms, helium and hydrogen, and the outer planets mostly heavier ones? Why are the inner planets, Mercury to Mars hard spheres, and then the next ones beyond them gasseous?

Maybe it's like that question of the oil in the bathtub water ... maybe there is some kind of surface-tension like phenomenon that is regulating the creation of the planets, rather than linear "gravity" alone, and this "surface tension" phenomenon is strongest near a harmonic or "interference" pattern for the EM fields of the Sun, and weakest when far away. In fact, that simple example, of oil drops in the bathtub, migth represent a dominant creative force in the universe, which scientists have completely overlooked! Really nice one!

If Einstein's concept of universal gravitation was the dominant creative force in the universe, wouldn't most of the heavier stuff eventually migrate toward the center of the system. Instead, the heavier stuff migrates outward, and the lighter stuff migrates toward the centers, forming the stars ... meaning that something other than gravity must have been the dominant force in creation of the the universe over the eons. Is the universe functioning like a great big centrifuge? If so, what is spinning the centrifuge ... Who organized it? Why not look for the principles which organized the universal centrifuge?

Not unrelated to this question is, did God create the universe, the same way that a bear takes a dump in the woods, and then say to Himself, Ehh, So What ... Who cares? Great Dump! and etc., then just wander off to chomp on some berries somewhere else? That's the essence of the big-bang theory: God made a big bang, and has been off powdering his nose ever since. (Similarly, is currency created, as Marx, the god-father of modern *financial capitalism, would have us believe from his book, Das Kapital, by a big-bang from a foreign banker-e.g. Rothschild's Federal Reserve System.) Or, is God still participating in an on-going creative process, with his only son as his companion? God, as a Marxist bear taking a one-time big-bang dump in the woods, or, God as an ongoing creative process, in which He did *not forget to include Himself. Then, what role did God intend for man in His overall creation? Or, was that too just a thoughtless Marxist dumping? Or, did God create man, intentionally including man's ability to share wonder and make discoveries -- so we began to ask, does God exist and if so, how can we know. Did God decide to create man and then leave him "in the lurch" as it were, while He heads off to powders his nose somewhere else, as our Marxist schools have taught us?

Consider the possibility that, relative to gravity, and in addition to the potential surface-tension forces of Treeman14's oil droplets, electromagnetic forces may also be a dominant force in the regulation of the orbits the planets, more dominant than Einstein's rehash of Newton's concept of gravity. The mantle of our earth, is a pretty good conductor (iron, aluminum, etc.) and we just happen to be hurling ... not thru empty space, but thru a huge EM field, at a high rate of speed. Just like an alternator in a car. (IMHO, the Earth's orbital velocity of 30 km/sec is not a totally insignificant percentage of the speed of light, of 300,000 lm/sec. The Earth's speed, relative to the speed of light, is enough that a simple survey instrument from eBay can easily measure the 20" deflection of the appareent location of a star to an accuracy of a few %.) Whether you consider it moving at an insignificant % of the speed of light, the Earth is nonetheless a conductor, moving at seriously high velocity (much higher than the windings in the alternator in your car) in the presence of a strong EM field, generated a huge EM generator, the Sun.

The result is an atmospheric voltage gradient (called the van Allen belt), averaging roughly 200 v per meter, and peaking at roughly 400 volts per meter. It changes during the day, and is strongest in the mornings, of a good clean day. Thus the saying, "on a good day, there's roughly 200 v between a man's nose and his toes ... so, don't ask many volts God gave him at the middle ..."

The tip of a leaf unfolding at the top of a 20m tree should be experiencing roughly 4,000 volts of EM "draw" from the Sun, relative to the Sun's EM "draw" at the tree's roots. Is it possible that 4,000 volts of electrical pressure might influence how a tree organizes new growth at its tip? When a new leaf unfolds, might it also be forming a kind of antennae ... for electromagnetic radiation? (Leaves are net producers of oxygen--admitted, but that's not the whole question. As in economics, we also have to ask, what produces the leaf, that produces the oxygen? Since it takes a tree, to produce the leaf, might we not also ask, how much oxygen does it take to produce the tree, that produces the leaf? If we consider each tree as a whole, through its entire dust-to-dust cycle, including its decomposition (a kind of slow burning), is the tree a net a producer of oxygen? I think not - just the leaf alone, is -- whence then comes the tree, and whence then our oxygen?)

Similarly, could this atmospheric electricity from the Sun's EM field be used to improve silviculture ... agriculture ... national economies and human health?

I don't know it the following experiment, to assess the existence of a gradient in our solar generated EM field, will work, but I'll propose it if someone wants to try it, but be careful please ...

Build a small leyden jar out of a plastic 35mm film cannister. Glue or scotch tape a flat piece of heavy aluminum foil to the inside wall, leaving a 1/8" band of plastic insulator at the top. Try to minimize the wrinkles, but no need to go to extreme. Do the same for the outside, again leaving maybe an 1/8" of insulator at the top. Drill a hole in the top cap, and tighten a small brass bolt to the cap such that the base of the bolt is pressed against a tag from the inside piece of aluminum, would folds along the bottom. (Or maybe take a piece of spring steel from a broken return spring of a recoil starter, so that it presses out against the foil, and then connect that to the center bolt.) The bolt is now going to be used as a kind of antennae to collect EM radiation from the Sun, so file the tip of the bolt to a sharp conical point. You have a small leyden jar which will collect electricity from the atmosphere-- so be careful.

Twist a small piece of bare wire around the outer foil, and connect that to a ground rod with a small piece of wire. At a height of 1 meter, the 200 volts static charge across the leyden jar should not be enough to have a dramatic effect. However, for the climbers amongst us, carry a similar pointed atmospheric collector (bolt) up the tree, and fashion a small solar antennae, pointed either (a) toward the Sun, or (b) perpendicular to the Sun and in the direction of the motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun (when facing the Sun, the Earth's orbital motion is to the right, in the plane of the wobbling ecliptic, or roughly in the plane of the arc of the Sun), whichever produces the most effect.

*You've now done a dangerous thing ... you've put a lightning rod in a tree, without adequate wire to ground its electrical potential during a lightning storm so (a) you might not want to try this on a cloudy day, and (b) you defninely do not leave this bolt sitting up in the tree.*

Have the groundsman connect the other end of the tree wire to the inner bolt of the mini-leyden jar. Now, there should be 4,000 volts stored in the leyden jar--if he touches his little finger to the ground wire and index finger to the center bolt, he should, in theory, experience a memorable event. Don't do this, shorting left hand across to right, or any hand down to foot, as the shock, if any, would pass thru your chest and might damage the electrical functioning of your heart.

If an electromagnetic field from the Sun can be detected by the 1 second charge of a small 35mm film cannister, shouldn't we consider its possible role in the regulation of the planets, in addition to that of gravity alone?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Apr 18, 2005)

Wow, dood. Somehow I thinking that's _not_ a cut n paste.


----------



## Mange (Apr 18, 2005)

To the more important question.

Is there a possibility that God is not a shape or form, could it be that God is a phenomena we do not yet have knowledge, or even fantasy to understand.

I doubt any can say what shape or form the space has, any more than size off it.
Theory's about big bang is sound brain training, but is it likely?
If so, If there was one big mass that exploded/imploded, was it the only one?

What if the bear that dumped in the woods was not alone, but had 2000 friends in other parts of the woods..............
I doubt we can see the borders of space, and if we one day will, We are in for a surprise. That is the fun of it.

Think of the age and size of space, count as many planets as you can, then sit down and have a look around yourself. How far do you have to look to see another organism?
Is it likely we are alone, could it be that this actually is old news?
If we exist the possibility of other life exist. Then there is perhaps no end or beginning, just changes................

I think that stars like the sun we are depending on is not everlasting nor are we, all things work in cycles, revolutions if that sounds better.
All things as we know them are continuously changing, sometimes fast, sometimes ever so slow, but still.......

I will go have a nap now


----------



## WRW (Apr 18, 2005)

Isn't the solar system backwards from the galaxy, for the most part? The centers of several galaxies are thought to be black holes (heavier material) with stars, dust, dark matter, etc., radiating out from there (lighter material)?


----------



## hobby climber (Apr 18, 2005)

The question is difficult to answer for sure. If the sun went supernova, it would take earth with it in the explosion. But the question was ,what it you just took the sun away ,no explosion or anything. Well on a "two dimensional level", it would be like having a large heavy ball in the middle of a big trampoline with smaller balls of lesser weights going/rolling around it (because of gravitational pull). Once the big heavy ball is taken away, the rest would fly off the trampoline! But if you had a very very big trampoline (like space), once everything settles down, the next biggest ball would find its way to the middle of the trampoline and the other smaller weighted ball would eventually begin going/rolling around the biggest ball in the middle. Now if you use this example in a three dimensional setting like outer space, I thing this scenario may have Merritt. :blob6: Just my .02, may the force be with you! HC


----------



## WRW (Apr 19, 2005)

If the planets were nearing conjunction, that sounds feasible. If not...


----------



## Chainsaw Master (Apr 20, 2005)

the momentum would carry them away to quickly........like a stone in a sling, or a rock on a string...when the string breaks, it would start a sraight course. The earth and moon might continue a whirrly wobbly course......like a set of bolas.


----------



## Tree Trimmer (May 1, 2005)

*What is dark matter? (Jeopardy challenge)*



Chainsaw Master said:


> or a rock on a string...



Ever hear the one about cutting a whole clean through the earth and jumping in? *Ignoring feasibility, and wind resistance*, you'd accelerate to the middle, but slow down all the way out to the other side and stop. 

Similarly, you can't really discuss this question feasibly without specifying the initial conditions. 

Suppose this rock on the string above is the case in point. Certainly the rock will fly off in a straight line the instant the string's knot goes bad at the rock. However the string may break at your hand that's flinging it around. Then the string will go with the rock and the _system_'s center of mass will fly off in a straight line immediately. The string's mass may even be appreciable, but the interaction between it and the rock will not delay the reaction to the absence of a constraining force to keep it on that curved path. 

Similarly, even though the force is an action at a distance for the sun and earth, once the sun is gone, the constraining force is gone just as quickly. An outside observer (that is someone looking down on the earth-sun system with say a video camera) would see the earth fly off in a straight line (frame by frame regardless of fps). 

There is merit to the discussion of relativity and who sees what when. I just don't think that we can mix it up with the fundamentals here unless we change our assumptions on how we've seen the universe behave up to this point. 

TT


----------



## hobby climber (May 1, 2005)

They say that if the earth stops rotating we would all just float away. The rotation and the earths mass creates the gravitational pull or gravity as we know it. So, if all planets spin on their axis and rotate around the sun and the sun vanishes (as per original post), would not each planet and their moon(s) just continue on a straight path till they meet up with another star that they could rotate around? I don't know if the earth would slow its rotation if the sun disappears or not...if it does, the moon would surely go its own way.  ...me to! HC


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 1, 2005)

Ya know, I just ain't gonna trouble myself worrying about such nonsense.


----------

