Posted on 10/18/2004 12:27:05 PM PDT by roaddog727
No, I don't mean, can't know EVER.
Just, don't know now.
I would never hold it (the Universe) was "unknowable." I just think there is so much wrong with what we think we know now. From expansion to gravity. Not that it can never be known. No, don't mean that.
... the galactic north pole, defined by the galactic coordinate system, coincides with the rotational south pole of our Galaxy, and vice versa.We're the Australians of the galaxy!
"After this election, no matter which way it comes out, I will need one or more pan-galactic-gargle-blasters!"
Amen, Brother!
I'm thinking that the current model is a vector field, and not a wave model. I'm not aware of any wave properties exhibited by gravity...
The movie will be out next summer. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
There is a new BBC radio series and you can listen to it on the Internet http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
According to my tagline for the past few months, gravity is the same as electromagnetism. We already know from Weinberg and Salaam that EM is the same as the weak nuclear force. I'm betting it's all the same. One day at lunch I'll prove it.
it's 42...
I'd like to suggest that the question is “Who is responsible for this mess?” and the units for the answer are Presidents of the United States.
Newton's law of gravity has an interesting corollary. Suppose that outside the known planets there a spherical shell of matter surrounding the sun, and further suppose for simplicity that the shell is equally dense everywhere. Then by Newton's law the gravitational force caused by the shell inside the shell would be zero (I believe that relativity doesn't change this result). An observer inside the shell could only detect the shell's gravity by looking at something outside: like the Pioneer probes?
I honestly don't have a coherent theory on gravity waves one way or the other except my general opinion of gravity (its not a fundemental effet, but a byproduct of other phenomena).
I know that I have seen many other sources discussing "gravity waves" and "gravitons", so I would assume that the vector field and the wave model are competing with each other for more credibility at the moment.
I probably tend to favor the vector field model, but but view it as completely possible that it is a wave phenomena
If you really want to complicate it, it just occured to me that it is even more likely that it is both a vector field and wave, much as light is both particle and wave, but again, the underlying causes of gravity are what need scrutiny, not gravity itself.
But I agree, at the size you and density you indicate, the incidence of collisions with normal mass is likely very low, but it is still higher than zero. Over time (granted lots and lots of time) I would expect them to aglommerate in to larger black holes. Did the guy giving the speech address this at all?
Check out my tagline, been mine for the last couple of months as well. I've never seen yours before or I would have noticed it. Gravity is not the same thing electromagnetic force, however. But if you have a coherent model that says it is, I would love to hear it. Then, you can buy me lunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.