| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ned" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2007 11:10:50 AM |
| Object: |
Titanomachy |
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
As sure as Saturn castrated Uranus,
as sure as Jupiter cast down Saturn,
the Higgs boson is at hand.
Satan failed in a similar effort,
himself cast out to a darkened land,
though great God Jah is little comfort,
the Higgs boson is at hand.
From God's blood rose a race of giants,
from God's brow sprang the Queen of Love,
when God wed Memory, came the Muses,
while Jah stayed safely throned above.
On earth there moiled a people chosen,
elect and proud from ancient days,
yet only we will find the boson
worthy of eternal praise.
The tribes of Jah await the coming,
one last mortal resurrection -
dark world's dire and sure undoing,
Evil's final, dread destruction.
While we pagans toss and teeter,
lone and lost by black abyss,
waiting out the withering weather,
for a boson, name of Higgs.
- Ned
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 01:33:45 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
From God's blood rose a race of giants,
[snip]
I'd characterize the Church of Rome as a homosexual pederasty club.
If you'd like that in a giant package, volunteer your own kids.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 02:31:09 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
From God's blood rose a race of giants,
[snip]
I'd characterize the Church of Rome as a homosexual pederasty club.
If you'd like that in a giant package, volunteer your own kids.
Now, now, calm down. The mother church has existed for a good 15
centuries longer than the language you used to express that insult.
Besides, I was referring to Uranus, whose blood (some say semen)
fell to earth after his castration by his son Saturn (Cronos), and
gave birth to the giants, the furies, and the nymphs of the ash
tree (which I am sure you are aware gave birth to the race of men
in the Age of Bronze).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
Weird site, man. Weird!
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 02:45:05 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
[snip]
Doubtful. No Higgs.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Whitehead" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 02:56:45 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DD351.6C9EFE20@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
[snip]
Doubtful. No Higgs.
says lord Kalvin?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 03:13:19 PM |
|
|
"James Whitehead" <james@somewhereovertherainbow.com> wrote in message
news:1196283406.13378.0@damia.uk.clara.net...
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
[snip]
Doubtful. No Higgs.
says lord Kalvin?
Kalvin and Higgs? A bratty little boy and his make-believe
friend? Sounds like the history of religion.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 03:59:42 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Ned wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
[snip]
Doubtful. No Higgs.
We're all bosons on this bus.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 01:40:59 AM |
|
|
Don Shepherd wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Ned wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
[snip]
Doubtful. No Higgs.
We're all bosons on this bus.
Don
Step to the back of the bus, then.
You've hadron too many.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 04:01:01 AM |
|
|
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Don Shepherd wrote:
We're all bosons on this bus.
Don
Step to the back of the bus, then.
You've hadron too many.
Boy, you really lepton that!
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
30 Nov 2007 01:40:42 AM |
|
|
Don Shepherd wrote:
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Don Shepherd wrote:
We're all bosons on this bus.
Don
Step to the back of the bus, then.
You've hadron too many.
Boy, you really lepton that!
Don
A leftover reflex from my days in vaudeville, when I usually got pion
my face for it.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 01:38:49 AM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:474DC299.898ADB1A@hate.spam.net...
Ned wrote:
TITANOMACHY
"We don't murder our fathers enough.
That's why we're going extinct." - MMT 11/07
The Higgs boson is at hand!
[snip]
Doubtful. The Higgs is a jury rig to the 100% massless Standard
Model. The Higgs mechanism requires that all fundamental masses be
explicitly inserted. There is no reason to expect the Higgs will
appear at CERN with any greater probability than the Tooth Fairy
redesigning Japanese jaws.
Ohhh... a critic! Keep your hands off my boson. This is the
be-all, the end-all, the LAST particle, the finishing touch on
the final filigree of the pluperfectest theory of EVERYTHING!
Just you wait! You'll be bowing down to CERN within two years.
Yeah, you prolly believe carbon dioxide is causing "global warming," too.
<snippage>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
No more than the gravitational pull of the smaller object inhibits
the rotation of the larger object.
Hmmm. I /knew/ there was a reason I was slowing down.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 05:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Nov 28, 3:31 pm, "Ned" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip repost>
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
What you are saying here is that "The gravitational pull of the larger
object (Earth) inhibits the rotation of the smaller object (the
moon)", which is a fait accompli. The moon no longer rotates relative
to the gradient in the earth's gravitational field.
What you are ignoring (or mis-stating) is that the *differential*
gravitation (tide-raising force) works both ways, so the moon's
gravitation (and to a lesser extent the sun's as well) is what is
slowing the earth's rotation.
The earth is not perfectly rigid. It flexes as it spins in the moon's
gravity because the part that is facing the moon feels a stronger
gravitational effect from the moon than the part facing away from the
moon.
Weird site, man. Weird!
Ned
Tidal friction converts kinetic energy of rotation to thermal energy,
while the total angular momentum of the system is conserved.
The earth is still spinning fast, but friction from the interaction
with the moon's gravitational field raises tides in the water and the
land, heating both while slowing down rotation. When the earth has
slowed enough that it keeps one face towards the moon, then the
interaction with the moon's gravity will no longer produce tides, and
the sun's gravity will become the main factor slowing down the
rotation of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html
http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf
Eventually, if the sun, earth, and moon last that long, the moon and
earth will recombine and become a single body locked into position
facing the sun (at the moment I don't want to calculate how long that
may take).
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 07:13:30 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:62d7fd94-63ee-4322-9087-acd0f710efa9@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
What you are saying here is that "The gravitational pull of the
larger object (Earth) inhibits the rotation of the smaller object
(the moon)", which is a fait accompli. The moon no longer rotates
relative to the gradient in the earth's gravitational field.
What you are ignoring (or mis-stating) is that the *differential*
gravitation (tide-raising force) works both ways, so the moon's
gravitation (and to a lesser extent the sun's as well) is what
is slowing the earth's rotation.
The earth is not perfectly rigid. It flexes as it spins in the
moon's gravity because the part that is facing the moon feels a
stronger gravitational effect from the moon than the part facing
away from the moon.
Tidal friction converts kinetic energy of rotation to thermal
energy, while the total angular momentum of the system is
conserved.
The earth is still spinning fast, but friction from the interaction
with the moon's gravitational field raises tides in the water and
the land, heating both while slowing down rotation. When the earth
has slowed enough that it keeps one face towards the moon, then the
interaction with the moon's gravity will no longer produce tides,
and the sun's gravity will become the main factor slowing down the
rotation of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html
http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf
Eventually, if the sun, earth, and moon last that long, the moon
and earth will recombine and become a single body locked into
position facing the sun (at the moment I don't want to calculate
how long that may take).
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Oh, take a shot. Is it more like a billion years or more
like a 100 million years?
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Rudolph" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 07:52:15 PM |
|
|
"Ned" <nedludd@ix.netcom.com> writes:
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
It would be better to say (all "relative"ness aside, and more
than adequate approximations being taken for granted) that the
Earth-Moon system rotates around ITS center of gravity (which
is, however, beneath the surface of the Earth, giving some
standing to the knowledge you impute to the earth, above).
Lee Rudolph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 02:33:32 AM |
|
|
Lee Rudolph wrote:
"Ned" <nedludd@ix.netcom.com> writes:
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
It would be better to say (all "relative"ness aside, and more
than adequate approximations being taken for granted) that the
Earth-Moon system rotates around ITS center of gravity (which
is, however, beneath the surface of the Earth, giving some
standing to the knowledge you impute to the earth, above).
Lee Rudolph
But if the moon is thus in a sense /inside/ the Earth, would it not
be far more correct to say that the moon "knows" the Earth (in the
Biblical sense)?
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Invisible Lurker" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 10:02:18 PM |
|
|
Ned said:
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:62d7fd94-63ee-4322-9087-acd0f710efa9@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
What you are saying here is that "The gravitational pull of the
larger object (Earth) inhibits the rotation of the smaller object
(the moon)", which is a fait accompli. The moon no longer rotates
relative to the gradient in the earth's gravitational field.
What you are ignoring (or mis-stating) is that the *differential*
gravitation (tide-raising force) works both ways, so the moon's
gravitation (and to a lesser extent the sun's as well) is what
is slowing the earth's rotation.
The earth is not perfectly rigid. It flexes as it spins in the
moon's gravity because the part that is facing the moon feels a
stronger gravitational effect from the moon than the part facing
away from the moon.
Tidal friction converts kinetic energy of rotation to thermal
energy, while the total angular momentum of the system is
conserved.
The earth is still spinning fast, but friction from the interaction
with the moon's gravitational field raises tides in the water and
the land, heating both while slowing down rotation. When the earth
has slowed enough that it keeps one face towards the moon, then the
interaction with the moon's gravity will no longer produce tides,
and the sun's gravity will become the main factor slowing down the
rotation of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html
http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf
Eventually, if the sun, earth, and moon last that long, the moon
and earth will recombine and become a single body locked into
position facing the sun (at the moment I don't want to calculate
how long that may take).
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Oh, take a shot. Is it more like a billion years or more
like a 100 million years?
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
The moon is so large that it is essentially a binary system
with the LaGrange points far outside the earth. The moon
is no puny satellite.
--
Invisible Lurker
Really Not Here or There, Either
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 04:13:33 AM |
|
|
"Invisible Lurker" <ansaman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Rq3j.4896$k27.2249@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
: Ned said:
: > "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
: >
news:62d7fd94-63ee-4322-9087-acd0f710efa9@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: >>
: >>> I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
: >>> slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
: >>> slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
: >>> they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
: >>> inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
: >>
: >> What you are saying here is that "The gravitational pull of the
: >> larger object (Earth) inhibits the rotation of the smaller object
: >> (the moon)", which is a fait accompli. The moon no longer rotates
: >> relative to the gradient in the earth's gravitational field.
: >> What you are ignoring (or mis-stating) is that the *differential*
: >> gravitation (tide-raising force) works both ways, so the moon's
: >> gravitation (and to a lesser extent the sun's as well) is what
: >> is slowing the earth's rotation.
: >> The earth is not perfectly rigid. It flexes as it spins in the
: >> moon's gravity because the part that is facing the moon feels a
: >> stronger gravitational effect from the moon than the part facing
: >> away from the moon.
: >> Tidal friction converts kinetic energy of rotation to thermal
: >> energy, while the total angular momentum of the system is
: >> conserved.
: >> The earth is still spinning fast, but friction from the interaction
: >> with the moon's gravitational field raises tides in the water and
: >> the land, heating both while slowing down rotation. When the earth
: >> has slowed enough that it keeps one face towards the moon, then the
: >> interaction with the moon's gravity will no longer produce tides,
: >> and the sun's gravity will become the main factor slowing down the
: >> rotation of the earth.
: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
: >> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html
: >> http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf
: >> Eventually, if the sun, earth, and moon last that long, the moon
: >> and earth will recombine and become a single body locked into
: >> position facing the sun (at the moment I don't want to calculate
: >> how long that may take).
: >> Tom Davidson
: >> Richmond, VA
: >>
: >
: > Oh, take a shot. Is it more like a billion years or more
: > like a 100 million years?
: >
: > But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
: > the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
: > than IT revolving around the moon?
: >
: > Ned
:
: The moon is so large that it is essentially a binary system
: with the LaGrange points far outside the earth. The moon
: is no puny satellite.
:
: --
: Invisible Lurker
: Really Not Here or There, Either
Not all there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 02:48:25 AM |
|
|
Invisible Lurker wrote:
Ned said:
"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:62d7fd94-63ee-4322-9087-acd0f710efa9@t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I don't buy it. The earth's rotation is slowing down. It is
slowing down for the same reason that the moon (and all moons)
slow down and ultimately present the same 'face' to the object
they are circling: The gravitational pull of the larger object
inhibits the rotation of the smaller object.
What you are saying here is that "The gravitational pull of the
larger object (Earth) inhibits the rotation of the smaller object
(the moon)", which is a fait accompli. The moon no longer rotates
relative to the gradient in the earth's gravitational field.
What you are ignoring (or mis-stating) is that the *differential*
gravitation (tide-raising force) works both ways, so the moon's
gravitation (and to a lesser extent the sun's as well) is what
is slowing the earth's rotation.
The earth is not perfectly rigid. It flexes as it spins in the
moon's gravity because the part that is facing the moon feels a
stronger gravitational effect from the moon than the part facing
away from the moon.
Tidal friction converts kinetic energy of rotation to thermal
energy, while the total angular momentum of the system is
conserved.
The earth is still spinning fast, but friction from the interaction
with the moon's gravitational field raises tides in the water and
the land, heating both while slowing down rotation. When the earth
has slowed enough that it keeps one face towards the moon, then the
interaction with the moon's gravity will no longer produce tides,
and the sun's gravity will become the main factor slowing down the
rotation of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html
http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf
Eventually, if the sun, earth, and moon last that long, the moon
and earth will recombine and become a single body locked into
position facing the sun (at the moment I don't want to calculate
how long that may take).
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Oh, take a shot. Is it more like a billion years or more
like a 100 million years?
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
The moon is so large that it is essentially a binary system
with the LaGrange points far outside the earth. The moon
is no puny satellite.
Being defined by the secondary, all five LaGrange Points are /always/
"far" outside the primary.
L1: equigravitational point (between p1 and p2).
L2: equitidal point (opposite p1 out the far side of p2).
L1 and L2 center on p2.
L3: equinodal point (opposite p2 out the far side of p1).
L4: Greek point (60 deg ahead of p2 in p2's orbit about p1).
L5: Trojan point (60 deg behind p2 in p2's orbit about p1).
L3, L4, L5, and p2 center on p1.
What the "moon" is "far outside of" is Earth's Rochelle Limit, i.e.,
it isn't a "moon" but one of a planetary binary in primary orbit
about the sun.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 07:46:28 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
What does it mean to say that the earth "knows" something?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 07:47:54 PM |
|
|
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:URo3j.50965$Pt.45933@trnddc02...
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
What does it mean to say that the earth "knows" something?
Don
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Whitehead" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
30 Nov 2007 01:37:06 AM |
|
|
"Ned" <nedludd@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13ks6nahas71r3f@corp.supernews.com...
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:URo3j.50965$Pt.45933@trnddc02...
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
Ned
What does it mean to say that the earth "knows" something?
Don
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 08:03:05 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 08:17:00 PM |
|
|
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t5p3j.50971$Pt.35028@trnddc02...
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
It would be better to say (all "relative"ness aside, and more
than adequate approximations being taken for granted) that the
Earth-Moon system rotates around ITS center of gravity (which
is, however, beneath the surface of the Earth, giving some
standing to the knowledge you impute to the earth, above).
Lee Rudolph
---
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 09:40:11 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:t5p3j.50971$Pt.35028@trnddc02...
But one question... If all motion is relative, how does
the earth know that the moon is revolving around IT, rather
than IT revolving around the moon?
It would be better to say (all "relative"ness aside, and more
than adequate approximations being taken for granted) that the
Earth-Moon system rotates around ITS center of gravity (which
is, however, beneath the surface of the Earth, giving some
standing to the knowledge you impute to the earth, above).
Lee Rudolph
---
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Ned
Then why do you come back?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 10:12:26 PM |
|
|
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vwq3j.54558$9h.25216@trnddc07...
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Then why do you come back?
Don
The meaning of "meaning" is a ratio. One thing (object, event,
process) is required to be expressed in terms which are different
than, but equivalent to, the original thing (object, event, process).
So when you say something goes "around" another thing, yet claim
that all motion is relative, you haven't said anything - you have
just arbitrarily decided to pick the thing that "goes around" and
the other thing, which doesn't.
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Shepherd" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 10:23:39 PM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vwq3j.54558$9h.25216@trnddc07...
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Then why do you come back?
Don
The meaning of "meaning" is a ratio. One thing (object, event,
process) is required to be expressed in terms which are different
than, but equivalent to, the original thing (object, event, process).
So when you say something goes "around" another thing, yet claim
that all motion is relative, you haven't said anything - you have
just arbitrarily decided to pick the thing that "goes around" and
the other thing, which doesn't.
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Ned
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
28 Nov 2007 10:30:52 PM |
|
|
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f9r3j.15521$Mr.10594@trnddc04...
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Then why do you come back?
The meaning of "meaning" is a ratio. One thing (object, event,
process) is required to be expressed in terms which are different
than, but equivalent to, the original thing (object, event, process).
So when you say something goes "around" another thing, yet claim
that all motion is relative, you haven't said anything - you have
just arbitrarily decided to pick the thing that "goes around" and
the other thing, which doesn't.
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
Ah, but alas, the reason I have never left is because I have never
been here.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 02:30:04 AM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f9r3j.15521$Mr.10594@trnddc04...
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Then why do you come back?
The meaning of "meaning" is a ratio. One thing (object, event,
process) is required to be expressed in terms which are different
than, but equivalent to, the original thing (object, event, process).
So when you say something goes "around" another thing, yet claim
that all motion is relative, you haven't said anything - you have
just arbitrarily decided to pick the thing that "goes around" and
the other thing, which doesn't.
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
Ah, but alas, the reason I have never left is because I have never
been here.
Ned
If you have never been here, you might be a Buddhist.
If you have never been anywhere, you might be a couch potato.
If you are not here now, /I/ might be a Buddhist.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 09:05:52 AM |
|
|
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:6-udnaMEpcIQ5dPanZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@onvoy.com...
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
Ah, but alas, the reason I have never left is because I have never
been here.
Ned
If you have never been here, you might be a Buddhist.
If you have never been anywhere, you might be a couch potato.
If you are not here now, /I/ might be a Buddhist.
I fundamentally do not exist and at the present moment will
not be annihilated.
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
30 Nov 2007 01:42:32 AM |
|
|
Ned wrote:
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlmark@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:6-udnaMEpcIQ5dPanZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@onvoy.com...
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
Ah, but alas, the reason I have never left is because I have never
been here.
Ned
If you have never been here, you might be a Buddhist.
If you have never been anywhere, you might be a couch potato.
If you are not here now, /I/ might be a Buddhist.
I fundamentally do not exist and at the present moment will
not be annihilated.
Ned
Then watch out for passing satori, since I don't care to see you in
the flash.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis M. Hammes" |
|
| Title: Re: Titanomachy |
29 Nov 2007 02:25:58 AM |
|
|
Don Shepherd wrote:
Ned wrote:
"Don Shepherd" <donshep2.nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vwq3j.54558$9h.25216@trnddc07...
What does it mean to say that one thing goes "around" another
thing, when all motion is relative?
Ned
What does it mean to say that something means something?
Don
You see, that's why you assholes are stuck over here in a.b.s.f.g.
Then why do you come back?
Don
The meaning of "meaning" is a ratio. One thing (object, event,
process) is required to be expressed in terms which are different
than, but equivalent to, the original thing (object, event, process).
So when you say something goes "around" another thing, yet claim
that all motion is relative, you haven't said anything - you have
just arbitrarily decided to pick the thing that "goes around" and
the other thing, which doesn't.
Thus do I never come back, because I have never left.
Ned
Then that means you're stuck here with us.
Don
Perhaps. But /you're/ the one who sees us as Omnipresent and
Immovable in /your/ sky, while you at least go away for twelve hours
every day.
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Gresham's Law is not worth a Continental.
http://scrawlmark.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
