Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #374737 > unrolled thread

Milky Way's Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-23 12:56 -0800
    Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-05 12:34 -0800
      Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-05 22:12 +0000
        Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-05 14:19 -0800
          Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-05 22:40 +0000
            Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-05 14:54 -0800
              Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 18:20 +0100
                Re: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-06 10:07 -0800
                  Newtonian gravity vs. general relativity (was: Milky Way's  Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-06 21:58 +0100

#374737 — Milky Way's Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us

We are orbiting the milky way and that motion gives math slow rate slow
math movement increased energy that is part of our body form.
These larger movements we still share. Mathematical scientific
we start calculating from our largest domain of motion we don't
see directly. Our body's domain creates the opposite appearance of
things moving backward around you or underneath...

The math is Gamma and inverse Gamma factor programing it by speed's
we have at more levels we can identify...

Your world line is your bodies own primary local motion of itself
brought to your entire life.
It appears opposite as the Earth moving underneath you...
but anyone who won an Olympic race would say they did it.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#375632

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 12:56:12 PM UTC-8, james...@gmail.com wrote:
> We are orbiting the milky way and that motion gives math slow rate slow
> math movement increased energy that is part of our body form.
> These larger movements we still share. Mathematical scientific
> we start calculating from our largest domain of motion we don't
> see directly. Our body's domain creates the opposite appearance of
> things moving backward around you or underneath...
> 
> The math is Gamma and inverse Gamma factor programing it by speed's
> we have at more levels we can identify...
> 
> Your world line is your bodies own primary local motion of itself
> brought to your entire life.
> It appears opposite as the Earth moving underneath you...
> but anyone who won an Olympic race would say they did it.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

We are moving from gravity orbit in more than one gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375640

Użytkownik jamesl51165 napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

>> have at more levels we can identify...
>> 
>> Your world line is your bodies own primary local motion of itself
>> brought to your entire life.
>> It appears opposite as the Earth moving underneath you...
>> but anyone who won an Olympic race would say they did it.
>> 
>> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> We are moving from gravity orbit in more than one gravity.

No, I challenge you. There is a better solution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375641

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-6, shan wrote:
> Użytkownik jamesl51165 napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:
> 
> >> have at more levels we can identify...
> >> 
> >> Your world line is your bodies own primary local motion of itself
> >> brought to your entire life.
> >> It appears opposite as the Earth moving underneath you...
> >> but anyone who won an Olympic race would say they did it.
> >> 
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > We are moving from gravity orbit in more than one gravity.
> 
> No, I challenge you. There is a better solution.

SIZE will almost certainly solve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375642

Użytkownik John Gogo napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:

>> > We are moving from gravity orbit in more than one gravity.
>> 
>> No, I challenge you. There is a better solution.
> 
> SIZE will almost certainly solve it.

Size is nothing. I challenge you. When they are pushing particles to smash 
into each other at the Large Hadron Collider, and when the Chinese will 
start a Collider even larger than the Large Hadron Collider, The Ultra 
Large Hadron Collider, what do you think it's happening? (present tense).

Well, these things are a transcendental mirror, more you collide at small 
scale, more, denser and Larger asteroids will collide with planet Terra. 
This is also what is known as the corruption of the flesh in ancient 
scriptures. I challenge you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375647

> Użytkownik John Gogo napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:
> 
> >> > We are moving from gravity orbit in more than one gravity.
> >> 
> >> No, I challenge you. There is a better solution.
> > 
> > SIZE will almost certainly solve it.
> 
> Size is nothing. I challenge you. When they are pushing particles to smash 
> into each other at the Large Hadron Collider, and when the Chinese will 
> start a Collider even larger than the Large Hadron Collider, The Ultra 
> Large Hadron Collider, what do you think it's happening? (present tense).
> 
> Well, these things are a transcendental mirror, more you collide at small 
> scale, more, denser and Larger asteroids will collide with planet Terra. 
> This is also what is known as the corruption of the flesh in ancient 
> scriptures. I challenge you.

The levels of orbital motion for the Earth are easy to pin point...
We orbit the center of the Sun's gravity. We orbit the Milky Way
gravity center.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375688

jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:

> The levels of orbital motion for the Earth are easy to pin point...
> We orbit the center of the Sun's gravity.

Gravity is a force (field); it has no center.

Terra (Earth) orbits the center of _mass_ of _the Sol System_ (its 
barycenter; which is close to Sol’s center of mass).

> We orbit the Milky Way gravity center.

Given that Sol’s mass dominates the Sol System (99.86 % of the Sol System’s 
total mass comes from that star), it would be only correct to say that Sol 
or the Sol System orbit the Milky Way barycenter.  So do other star systems 
in the Milky Way.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375691

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> > The levels of orbital motion for the Earth are easy to pin point...
> > We orbit the center of the Sun's gravity.
> 
 Gravity is a force (field); it has no center.

So Newton was wrong in his math? When did this happen?
They say gravity drops off inward to a zero.
If this is true then there is the center of the Earth
and it's gravity center.

> 
> Terra (Earth) orbits the center of _mass_ of _the Sol System_ (its 
> barycenter; which is close to Sol's center of mass).
> 
> > We orbit the Milky Way gravity center.
> 
> Given that Sol's mass dominates the Sol System (99.86 % of the Sol System's 
> total mass comes from that star), it would be only correct to say that Sol 
> or the Sol System orbit the Milky Way barycenter.  So do other star systems 
> in the Milky Way.

The solar system whole has a center that orbits the center of the milky way.
Again Newton is accepted on the account of this truth...
Einstein adopted a center of field for his contractile curvature...

Mitchell Raemsch

> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>    I find myself very attracted to you.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375703 — Newtonian gravity vs. general relativity (was: Milky Way's Kinetic Energy in Our orbiting arm; this motion we share with the larger that is together with us)

jamesl51165@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

It’s attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

>> > The levels of orbital motion for the Earth are easy to pin point...
>> > We orbit the center of the Sun's gravity.
>  Gravity is a force (field); it has no center.
> 
> So Newton was wrong in his math?

He was certainly not quite right, as Einstein, among others, showed.  
Newton’s theory of gravity works only approximately for objects with non-
zero mass, and it does not work at all for photons which have zero mass (we 
observe that massive bodies are bending light).

But it is your invention that Newton said “center of gravity”.

> When did this happen?

Between the years 1907 and 1919 inclusive.  Einstein started work on what he 
later called “(the) general (theory of) relativity” (GR) after he postulated 
what he later called “(the) special (theory of) relativity” in 1905.  He 
publicly presented the corrected field equations of GR in 1915, which 
finally gained widespread laymen acceptance (after being accepted within the 
scientific community at the latest when Einstein showed that his new theory 
could very precisely predict Mercury’s perihelion precession – which 
Newton’s theory could not) with Eddington’s observations related to the 
solar eclipse of 1919.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity>

> They say gravity drops off inward to a zero.

Who says that about which object?

> If this is true then there is the center of the Earth
> and it's gravity center.

You are confusing terminology here, at best.

>> > We orbit the Milky Way gravity center.
>> 
>> Given that Sol's mass dominates the Sol System (99.86 % of the Sol
>> System's total mass comes from that star), it would be only correct to
>> say that Sol or the Sol System orbit the Milky Way barycenter.  So do
>> other star systems in the Milky Way.
> 
> The solar system whole has a center that orbits the center of the milky
> way.

The Sol System has a center _of mass_ that orbits the center _of mass_ of 
the Milky Way.

> Again Newton is accepted on the account of this truth...

Nonsense.

> Einstein adopted a center of field for his contractile curvature...

No, he did not.  That a field could have a center is only your invention.  
And “contractile curvature” is not even wrong.

A field is a description of a mathematical space that assigns a value to 
each point of that space.  If the values are vectors, each of which has a 
direction and a magnitude, then that field is called a vector field.  If the 
value is just a number, then the field is called a scalar field; consider, 
for example, the temperatures measured across a room.  If the value is a 
tensor… you get the picture.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)>

The gravitational field of Newtonian gravity is a vector field: the 
gravitational acceleration (and thus the force of gravity) on a test 
particle (with non-zero mass) has a different direction and magnitude in 
each point in the vicinity of a point particle (with non-zero mass).

IIUC, in GR the gravitational field is described as a tensor field where 
each point of spacetime is assigned a tensor describing the spacetime 
curvature at that point corresponding to the energy/mass density, stress, 
and momentum at that point.  Gravity is reduced to a fictional force, and 
the motion of objects is determined by the curvature of spacetime, and
vice-versa, instead.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#General_relativity>

Please do not quote signatures, and anything else, unless you refer to them.
And get a real name.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web