Or, this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Pythagoras-Brotherhood-Universe-Antiquity/dp/0802716318
Yes, probably you should go back to Pythagoras who taught that the Universe is based on Geometry, and God is Grand Architect!
Hawkings 'A brief history of time' was not expensive either. The words and sentences were easy to read. Thinking about what he said was another thing. We are all waiting on a good theory of gravity. I am sure the Nobel commission is ready.
I have my own theory, unencumbered by advanced degrees: There is only resonance. Everything else is just a manifestation. So, one could say we are all searching for the lost chord. (sorry)
Pythagoras was not far off, just he did not know about fractals.
I have my own theory, unencumbered by advanced degrees: There is only resonance. Everything else is just a manifestation. So, one could say we are all searching for the lost chord. (sorry)
Pythagoras was not far off, just he did not know about fractals.
Gravity is easy.
Everything is magnetic to some degree.
Molten metal churning in the earths core generates "Gravity" which is similar but not the same as traditional "magnetism". You can even hear these currents with a Tesla coil.
Smaller cooler planetary bodies like the "Moon" have less "Gravity".
Larger planetary bodies like the "Sun" that have molten, in-motion cores have more gravity. Our "Sun" has 28 times the gravity of earth.
Mass is just a mathematical interpretation of energy given the space it occupies. That's why you can have two planets the same diameter with different gravities.
Coincidence or correlation?
Everything is magnetic to some degree.
Molten metal churning in the earths core generates "Gravity" which is similar but not the same as traditional "magnetism". You can even hear these currents with a Tesla coil.
Smaller cooler planetary bodies like the "Moon" have less "Gravity".
Larger planetary bodies like the "Sun" that have molten, in-motion cores have more gravity. Our "Sun" has 28 times the gravity of earth.
Mass is just a mathematical interpretation of energy given the space it occupies. That's why you can have two planets the same diameter with different gravities.
Coincidence or correlation?
Neither. Density is a function of composition (and to a lesser extent, temperature). Heavier atoms have more protons and neutrons, but not much larger diameters.
It looks like you are close to the roots of the problem. Did you read "Science and Akashic Field" by Dr. Ervin Lazslo?
Ervin László - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
It's the density, composition, internal and external motion that composes mass.
It has everything to do with motion. Even an object at rest is moving relative to something else.
The glass of water on my desk is moving 1625km per hour.
Say I place an stationary brick behind my glass that would not "move", now in the next 24 hours my glass of water will have traveled 12,750km and will impact the brick at speed of around 1625km per hour with a much greater force(mass) then if I drop the glass on the ground.
Same glass, same density different mass.
Things can have tremendous energy without appearing to move at all.
It has everything to do with motion. Even an object at rest is moving relative to something else.
The glass of water on my desk is moving 1625km per hour.
Say I place an stationary brick behind my glass that would not "move", now in the next 24 hours my glass of water will have traveled 12,750km and will impact the brick at speed of around 1625km per hour with a much greater force(mass) then if I drop the glass on the ground.
Same glass, same density different mass.
Things can have tremendous energy without appearing to move at all.
Globug, I think you're conflating a bunch of unrelated issues. Planetary mass is almost totally unaffected by internal motions (we're talking 0.00001% or less). Rest mass is totally unaffected by its velocity with respect to any arbitrary inertial frame. When we measure planetary masses, we're measuring (again to within a ridiculously small percentage) the rest mass.
Kinetic energy is a totally different issue; if they start in the same place, the brick you mention has to have energy put into it to get 12,750km at a velocity relative to its initial velocity of -1625 km/hr. That's the 1/2mv^2 energy of the collision.
Kinetic energy is a totally different issue; if they start in the same place, the brick you mention has to have energy put into it to get 12,750km at a velocity relative to its initial velocity of -1625 km/hr. That's the 1/2mv^2 energy of the collision.
I suppose there are two different kinds of gravity. Electromagnetic bonds and fluid density packing. To clarify:Fluid Density packing is what keeps water between air and earth. Or different oils in a flask suspended depending on density. I think we experience both as we exist in a suspension.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.