"e T E R N A L R E F L E X I O N S"

[humanbydefault]

Last night I was watching the HISTORY CHANNEL [a thing that I often do if I find it interesting to watch...] and I catched a film about the birth of planets. Cosmologists can't explain -even as we speak- how big (also called jupiter-like) planets or hot-gas giants could spin so close and at such huge velocities around a star. If the concept of GRAVITY were understood I guess non of those questions were really a problem for us, but the truth is that GRAVITY and along with it so many other concepts like EATHER and many more become more and more enigmatic as we look into farther regions of the cosmos.

Acording to the way cosmologists are tryng to explain how planets attach themselves into an eliptical orbit around their sun at such incredible short distances from the star nothing make great sense anymore... don't take my word for granted... go and see for yourselves if you don't believe me.

My point is simple: If what makes the spatial planetarium orbit around a given sun were depended ONLY on the mass of the star those incredible phenomena [seen many times in different star systems] wouldn't be taking place at all... BUT THEY ARE A REALITY AND THEREFORE WE MUST ADMIT THAT WE HAVE TO BE WRONG.

Remember that Einstein proposed in his theory of relativity that planets orbit stars because of the effect produced by their big mass on the fabric of space-time. I agree on the consequence mentioned by him on the topography of space-time but not about the simplistic concept of MASS as the only factor involved.

I think that stars act just like the nucleus of atoms given their high content of energy. I believe that the energy spinning inside the nucleus of those suns are the ones responsible for the shape of the orbit followed by incoming planets and other space bodies attracted by it.

If the actual energy of the sun AND NOT ITS MASS were the only cause of the curvature on the fabric of space-time then those huge planets could be explained by the pull of high energy stars and not by the size or length of their mass.



HUMANBYDEFAULT

[MJA]

WE?

Who are we in the infinite vastness of the universe to understand anything?
Who do we think we are?
What is the power of our minds compared to the power of the universe?
How finitely small is our knowledge of infinity?
How big are we in relationship to it all?
What is gravity?
Who are we?
And what are we to know?
Man is only we.

=
MJA

[Graybeard]

Interesting HBD .... Do you know the name of the show you watched. I will try to catch it over here.

MJA ... according to the Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy 'We' are:

Humans
Humans are bipedal creatures from Earth, and the third most intelligent species on that planet. (Surpassed only by mice and dolphins.) Originally thought to have evolved from proto-apes, humans may in fact be descendants of Golgafrinchans - telephone sanitizers, account executives, and marketing analysts who arrived on the planet ca. two million BC. These Golgafrinchans apparently displaced the indigenous cavemen as the organic components in the computer designed by Deep Thought.
Interestingly, although the term "humanoid" is applied to many races throughout the galaxy, "humanity" refers specifically to the qualities of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_a..._to_the_Galaxy

Not bad for beginners eh ??

cool bananas ... greg

[neutralino]

HBD,

Firstly, I should point out that you mean astrophysicists, or astronomers, not cosmologists. Astronomers/astrophysicsts study the "stuff" in the universe, whereas cosmologists study the actual universe and its evolution.

Secondly, Einstein doesn't really say that mass curves spacetime; this is just the popularised way of thinking of things. The correct statement would be that anything with energy, or momentum, curves spacetime.

If you've ever studied GR, then you'll recall that Einsteins equations have two sides; a curvature part and a "stuff in the universe" part. The curvature, expressed as the Einstein tensor is proportional to the "stuff", which is expressed as the energy momentum tensor. This simple looking equation is really the crux of general relativity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi HBD, great to see ya back again. Just thought I'd mention I saw the same show, but I didn't find anything outside the laws of physics, just the strangeness, as compared to standard cosmology, and it sure is strange, but I'm pretty sure the conservation of angular momentum is still preserved, along with the mass and conservation laws, and maths, don't you...?

On another subject, which you have mentioned, in the past; What do you think about infintesimal photon particle/wave black-holes, existing at the center of all particles___protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, etc.,___all of QCD...? I know David once mentioned, he thought photons were the bonding mechanics of matter. And, I know you once mentioned the idea of electrons having mass centers, acting within electrons, so have a go at this new form of theorizing, and let me know what turns up...?

Regards,
Lloyd

Last night I was watching the HISTORY CHANNEL [a thing that I often do if I find it interesting to watch...] and I catched a film about the birth of planets. Cosmologists can't explain -even as we speak- how big (also called jupiter-like) planets or hot-gas giants could spin so close and at such huge velocities around a star. If the concept of GRAVITY were understood I guess non of those questions were really a problem for us, but the truth is that GRAVITY and along with it so many other concepts like EATHER and many more become more and more enigmatic as we look into farther regions of the cosmos.

Acording to the way cosmologists are tryng to explain how planets attach themselves into an eliptical orbit around their sun at such incredible short distances from the star nothing make great sense anymore... don't take my word for granted... go and see for yourselves if you don't believe me.

My point is simple: If what makes the spatial planetarium orbit around a given sun were depended ONLY on the mass of the star those incredible phenomena [seen many times in different star systems] wouldn't be taking place at all... BUT THEY ARE A REALITY AND THEREFORE WE MUST ADMIT THAT WE HAVE TO BE WRONG.

Remember that Einstein proposed in his theory of relativity that planets orbit stars because of the effect produced by their big mass on the fabric of space-time. I agree on the consequence mentioned by him on the topography of space-time but not about the simplistic concept of MASS as the only factor involved.

I think that stars act just like the nucleus of atoms given their high content of energy. I believe that the energy spinning inside the nucleus of those suns are the ones responsible for the shape of the orbit followed by incoming planets and other space bodies attracted by it.

If the actual energy of the sun AND NOT ITS MASS were the only cause of the curvature on the fabric of space-time then those huge planets could be explained by the pull of high energy stars and not by the size or length of their mass.



HUMANBYDEFAULT