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

Groups > sci.physics > #715868 > unrolled thread

Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 03:44 -0800
    Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 08:14 -0800
      Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 08:36 -0800
        Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 11:18 -0800
        Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 23:18 +0100
          Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 16:25 -0800
            Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 19:18 -0800
              Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 22:21 -0800
                Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 23:17 -0800
                Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 11:59 +0100
                  Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 05:20 -0800
                    Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:40 +0100
                      Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 05:45 -0800
                        Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 17:05 +0100
                        Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:09 +0000
                Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:00 +0000
            Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 11:55 +0100
    Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 11:19 -0800
      Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 13:59 -0800
    Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Mahipal <mahipal1729@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-01 13:56 -0800
    Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-01 22:42 -0800
      Re: Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity. Buck Futter <btfkr@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-02 07:19 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#715868 — Hydrogen and Helium do not respond to gravity.

This orbit is simultaneously rotating around all three axes.
It’s the S orbit.
Helium and Hydrogen use it and are therefore unresponsive to gravity.
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/Helium.GIF

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#715930

You just have come across an especially good batch of drugs, John...

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

#715943

Actually, since the S orbit rotates around all 3 axes, H and He are anti-gravitational.
So with larger bodies like Saturn and Jupiter, where they are actually giving off more gravitational emissions than they are absorbing, there is a zone of antigravity which traps the Hydrogen.

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

#715966

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 8:36:14 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Actually, since the S orbit rotates around all 3 axes, H and He are anti-gravitational.
> So with larger bodies like Saturn and Jupiter, where they are actually giving off more gravitational emissions than they are absorbing, there is a zone of antigravity which traps the Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is falling...

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

#716033

john wrote:
> Actually, since the S orbit rotates around all 3 axes, H and He are anti-gravitational.

If that were the case, the Sun would not have formed from a cloud of
interstellar hydrogen, and it would have flown apart after it hat produced
helium (that’s Greek for “sun stuff”) and none of us would be here.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#716071

Pointed
The sun and other stars have a negative surface gravity, which attracts Hydrogen and Helium.

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

#716110

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Pointed
> The sun and other stars have a negative surface gravity, which attracts Hydrogen and Helium.

John, it is amazing that you can make statements like this with a straight face... and, of course, without a lick of evidence in support of your goofy assertions.

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

#716140

Pnal
“
John, it is amazing that you can make statements like this with a straight face... and, of course, without a lick of evidence in support of your goofy assertions”

Just flying my model around.
Your model doesn’t fly- it just predicts monsters

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

#716143

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 10:21:40 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Pnal
> “
> John, it is amazing that you can make statements like this with a straight face... and, of course, without a lick of evidence in support of your goofy assertions”
> 
> Just flying my model around.
> Your model doesn’t fly- it just predicts monsters

As if that makes any sense at all! Just more gibberish from John. Put down the pipe, John...

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

#716153

john wrote:
> Pnal

Who?

> “
> John, it is amazing that you can make statements like this with a straight face... and, of course, without a lick of evidence in support of your goofy assertions”
> 
> Just flying my model around.

You don’t have a model, you have delusions.

> Your model doesn’t fly- it just predicts monsters

No, it works very well.  I have already given you examples how well it works.

You have yet to present a model that works just as well, i.e. gives
the *correct* *value* for the *measurable* mean surface gravity on Earth.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#716154

Thomas or whatever 
“No, it works very well.  I have already given you examples how well it works. ”

You’re delusional.
It only works if DArk Matter is real and then it still doesn’t work

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

#716164

john wrote:
> Thomas or whatever 

Learn to quote.  Idiot.

> “No, it works very well.  I have already given you examples how well it works. ”
> 
> You’re delusional.

Pot, kettle, black.

> It only works if DArk Matter is real

No.

> and then it still doesn’t work

But it does.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#716168

Thomas pointed idiot
“It only works if DArk Matter is real 

No. 

> and then it still doesn’t work 

But it does. 
“
No. They’ve tried to computer-simulate DM positioned to “pull” stars faster. Trouble is, once the stars pass, the same DM slows them back down.
It’s stupid- like you

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

#716209

john wrote:
> Thomas pointed idiot

Who?

>>> and then it still doesn’t work 
>> 
>> But it does. 
> 
> No. They’ve tried to computer-simulate DM positioned to “pull” stars faster.

Nonsense.

> Trouble is, once the stars pass, the same DM slows them back down.

Nonsense.  *The whole galaxy* is rotating, *including* the Dark Matter.
You get the observed rotation curve if you assume that galactic matter
is much more evenly distributed than the luminous matter suggests.

And there is much more evidence that supports DM than just rotation curves
e.g. gravitational lensing.

> It’s stupid- like you

*You* are stupid.  You don’t know shit about (astro)mechanics, and in your
blissful ignorance you think you do.

You can’t even quote properly.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#716227

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Thomas pointed idiot

John, you are the one who should be wearing the dunce cap!

>"It only works if DArk Matter is real

>No.

>> and then it still doesn't work

>But it does.
>"
>No. They've tried to computer-simulate DM positioned to "pull" stars 
>faster. Trouble is, once the stars pass, the same DM slows them back down.

What do you mean "once the stars pass"? The DM is in orbit like everything
else.  The computer simulations take that into account.

What part of "invisible heavy stuff" don't you understand?  You still 
haven't found a 6 year old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to you yet?

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

#716223

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The sun and other stars have a negative surface gravity, which attracts 
>Hydrogen and Helium.

Oh man, Little Pharma had some really great stuff, didn't they!

Even if I extrapolate that your "negative gravity" attracts "negative
gravity" hydrogen and helium, it would mean it would repel everything
else, and the sun would be spewing all the other elements. We don't see
that! The sun attracts everything.

Do you really think hydorgen and helium have "negative gravity" because
balloons filled with them float? Do you even know why H and He balloons
float?

>"
>John, it is amazing that you can make statements like this with a straight
>face... and, of course, without a lick of evidence in support of your goofy
> assertions"

>Just flying my model around.

You shouldn't be flying anything while stoned like that.

And you don't even _have_ a model! No equations, no computations, nothing!

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

#716152

john wrote:
> Pointed

Who?

> The sun and other stars have a negative surface gravity,

Most definitely not:

  g☉ = G M☉/R☉² ≈ 274.2 m/s² ≈ 27.96 g

<https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+(mass+of+Sun)%2F(radius+of+Sun)%5E2>

Compare:

  g = G M_Earth/R̅_Earth² ≈ 9.82 m/s²

    [same equation, different values, correct result]

<https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G+*+(mass+of+Earth)%2F(radius+of+Earth)%5E2&assumption=%22UnitClash%22+-%3E+%7B%22G%22,+%7B%22GravitationalConstant%22%7D%7D&assumption=%22UnitClash%22+-%3E+%7B%22radius+of+Earth%22,+%7B%22EarthMeanRadius%22%7D%7D>

> which attracts Hydrogen and Helium.

Gravity is attractive; so negative gravity is repulsive, NOT attractive.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#715967

Helium is heavy...

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

#716012

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Helium is heavy...

Well, Mitch, there are 118 elements in the periodic table, and Helium is the 117th heaviest...

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

#716010

How unusual. A moron with a gmail address is posting from google groups.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web