> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:26:30 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> >>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode?
> >> Contributors include shock wave bounce and a tremendous outpouring of > >> neutrinos.
> >> In the case of SN 1987A > >> o total anti-neutrino energy 3 x 10^52 erg > >> o total neutrino energy 2.5 x 10^53 erg > >> o total neutrino luminosity 10^55 erg/s > >> o average neutrino temperature 4 MeV or 10^10 K > >> o number of neutrinos produced 10^58 neutrinos
> >> o neutrino flux density at the earth 5 x 10^10 /cm^2
> > Which comes first, the neutrinos or the explosion?
>>> Contributors include shock wave bounce and a tremendous outpouring of >>> neutrinos.
>>> In the case of SN 1987A >>> o total anti-neutrino energy 3 x 10^52 erg >>> o total neutrino energy 2.5 x 10^53 erg >>> o total neutrino luminosity 10^55 erg/s >>> o average neutrino temperature 4 MeV or 10^10 K >>> o number of neutrinos produced 10^58 neutrinos
>>> o neutrino flux density at the earth 5 x 10^10 /cm^2
>> Which comes first, the neutrinos or the explosion?
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>> news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... >>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? >>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can >>> go further into the details.
>> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
> Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational > collapse, Henri.
We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause the bloody thing to blow up.
>>>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode?
>>>> Contributors include shock wave bounce and a tremendous outpouring of >>>> neutrinos.
>>>> In the case of SN 1987A >>>> o total anti-neutrino energy 3 x 10^52 erg >>>> o total neutrino energy 2.5 x 10^53 erg >>>> o total neutrino luminosity 10^55 erg/s >>>> o average neutrino temperature 4 MeV or 10^10 K >>>> o number of neutrinos produced 10^58 neutrinos
>>>> o neutrino flux density at the earth 5 x 10^10 /cm^2
>>> Which comes first, the neutrinos or the explosion?
Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>> news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... >>>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? >>>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can >>>> go further into the details. >>> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
>> Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational >> collapse, Henri.
> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes > some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause > the bloody thing to blow up.
Not "fusion", Henri, as the term is used in the physics community. Take the case of black hole formation, where no known force stops the collapse of the iron slag heap core.
In a millisecond or so, many solar masses of core, disappears leaving a... you'll like this, Henri... a void! The rest of the star is trying to crash in while at the same time copious energy (much in the form of neutrinos) is trying to get out.
> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes > some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause > the bloody thing to blow up.
Yes, just like a spark-plug, alone, does not make a piston move.
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >>>news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... > >>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? > >>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can > >>> go further into the details.
> >> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
> > Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational > > collapse, Henri.
> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes > some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause > the bloody thing to blow up.
Correct, whereas the extremely weak force of gravity is more like collateral damage than the bomb itself, although seismic implosions are every bit as interesting as Browns Gas. Perhaps what's getting inflated and then imploding at 500+ km under our dumbfounded feet is that of large volumes of Natural Browns Gas(NBG).
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >>>news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... > >>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? > >>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can > >>> go further into the details.
> >> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
> > Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational > > collapse, Henri.
> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes > some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause > the bloody thing to blow up.
If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then why not much sooner rather then later?
Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even hotter helium rather pathetic?
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:53:06 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:32:29 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:50:53 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>> news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... >>>>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? >>>>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can >>>>> go further into the details. >>>> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
>>> Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational >>> collapse, Henri.
>> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes >> some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause >> the bloody thing to blow up.
> Not "fusion", Henri, as the term is used in the physics community. > Take the case of black hole formation, where no known force stops > the collapse of the iron slag heap core.
> In a millisecond or so, many solar masses of core, disappears > leaving a... you'll like this, Henri... a void! The rest of > the star is trying to crash in while at the same time copious > energy (much in the form of neutrinos) is trying to get out.
Very...very willusory too. Unfortunately, when Einsteiniana is finally recognized as the joke it is, the whole of astrophysics will have to be rewritten.
Discussion subject changed to "Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. / Albert Einstein... he's the bomb!" by Henry Wilson DSc
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: >> >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >> >>>news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... >> >>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? >> >>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can >> >>> go further into the details.
>> >> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
>> > Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational >> > collapse, Henri.
>> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes >> some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause >> the bloody thing to blow up.
>If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then >why not much sooner rather then later?
>Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even >hotter helium rather pathetic?
The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. I wonder if it really is though.
Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
Discussion subject changed to "Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. / Albert Einstein... he's the bomb!" by Nightcrawler
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:30:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:49:32 -0500, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >> >>>news:j7t7f5l8mp9rhiv6us7g9tu2o5vu210r6h@4ax.com... > >> >>>> Wormey, what exactly causes a SN to explode? > >> >>> The short answer is gravity. If you want I can > >> >>> go further into the details.
> >> >> We're already far beyond 'gravity', dopey.
> >> > Actually not... the energy source of a supernova is gravitational > >> > collapse, Henri.
> >> We know that, wormey...but the compression due to gravity ultimately causes > >> some kind of fusion... the principal energy source. Gravity alone can't cause > >> the bloody thing to blow up.
> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling > >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then > >why not much sooner rather then later?
> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even > >hotter helium rather pathetic?
> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. > I wonder if it really is though.
Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed by the extremely weak force of gravity.
> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
Discussion subject changed to "Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. / Albert Einstein... he's the bomb!" by Henry Wilson DSc
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then >> >why not much sooner rather then later?
>> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?
>> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter. >> I wonder if it really is though.
>Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed >by the extremely weak force of gravity.
>> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?
>That's another good question. Seems the extremely weak force of >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little. Since pure >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.
When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how accurately do we know G?
I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after all....
I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > You've forgotten to mention his being a twice arrested "wife beater" > as well as a drug induced "Satan worshiper", because that’s exactly > what their Zionist/Jewish policy includes and approves of, as well as > slave ownership and apparently body snatchings for live organ > harvesting, along with their kosher approved SEC and its Ponzi Madoff > types that have no remorse about stealing from God, their own kind, or > their putting dark-skinned folks on a stick, and more recently > excessively irradiating 100,000 dark-skinned Jewish kids.
> ______________________________ > So Einstein harvested organs, owned slaves and worshipped Satan while on > drugs?
> Are you sure Einstein didn't also eat Christian babies for dinner? I can see > no authoritative source which rules this out, so its probably true. Jews > love eating Christian babies.
Don't be silly, because it's well known they don't eat pork, although they do satanic rituals (including blood letting in order to drain those christian evil spirits). Their putting Christ on a stick should have given us a clue as to what they think of dark-skinned folks (including those of their own kind).
> > You've forgotten to mention his being a twice arrested "wife beater" > > as well as a drug induced "Satan worshiper", because that's exactly > > what their Zionist/Jewish policy includes and approves of, as well as > > slave ownership and apparently body snatchings for live organ > > harvesting, along with their kosher approved SEC and its Ponzi Madoff > > types that have no remorse about stealing from God, their own kind, or > > their putting dark-skinned folks on a stick, and more recently > > excessively irradiating 100,000 dark-skinned Jewish kids.
> > ______________________________ > > So Einstein harvested organs, owned slaves and worshipped Satan while on > > drugs?
> Of course, Einstein did make some great contributions to mankind. > The URL below describes Einstein's greatest invention in detail.
> Considering how intently the Mass Media, > and GTR Guru's on the public dole, > hyped and hypes Einstein's General Relativity,
> a model that uses rubber clocks and rulers > to waste time, money and minds > on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, > gravitons, warping through space, etc.
> as mankind's greatest intellectual achievement,
> comparing Einstein's greatest invention to
> Edison's inventions that gave man > audio and video recording, > electrical power generation and distribution systems > with generators, motors, meters, lamps, heaters, etc.
> and the Watson, Crick DNA model > that is used every day to improve health, > fight crime, design better food crops, etc.
> No doubt, Einstein, like Maddock, Marx, > the Biblical authors, Ayn Rand, Uncle Al, etc. > was a master words smith, > but when one measures his works by > their positive benefits to mankind, > one realizes that:
And it obviously doesn't pay being married to Einstein, but then many intelligent folks were wife beaters, child molesters and otherwise terrible social dysfunctionals of their own. Is there any dictator/ warlord or physics wizard that isn't at least bipolar?
>>> Mind you, there is no reason why some cold planets should not be hollow. >>> There would be no gravity inside the centre. [...] > I don't make errors, idiot.
On Nov 8, 8:20 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> [...]
> >>> Mind you, there is no reason why some cold planets should not be hollow. > >>> There would be no gravity inside the centre. > [...] > > I don't make errors, idiot.
> bwahahah
HW is perfectly correct, in that at least semi-hollow planets and moons shouldn't be unexpected.
My suggestion of a 0.1% hollow moon is just allowing for that possibility because thus far we have nothing objective proving otherwise, and because there's so much of our public funded science that's either missing in action or having been rated as taboo/ nondisclosure about our Selene/moon, among many other explored things that shouldn't be so freaking cloak and dagger unless we're not being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth to begin with.
|
