Is gravity caused by rotation rate?

I thought Exchemist was harsh on him when he came back but he was spot on. Claim after pointless claim. Mindless.
Пин, почему здесь принято постоянно обзываться? В России назвать кого то тупым, означает оскорбить. Возможно, Ривер имел ввиду, что вращение объектов в пространстве похоже на взбивание масла или крема из сливок? Представьте себе огромную центрифугу, которая разгоняет некую среду, и отделяет вакуум от материи. Вот этот вакуум и будет тёмной материей вокруг всех вращающихся объектов, включая звезды, чёрные дыры, и галактики. А внутри объектов, например, внутри планет, вращающееся ядро тоже создаёт вакуум, который держит планету, не давая ей разлететься. Тоже можно назвать это тёмной материей. А можно, гравитацией. Возможно, Ривер имел ввиду такую модель, просто не знал, как вам объяснить?
 
Пин, почему здесь принято постоянно обзываться? В России назвать кого то тупым, означает оскорбить. Возможно, Ривер имел ввиду, что вращение объектов в пространстве похоже на взбивание масла или крема из сливок? Представьте себе огромную центрифугу, которая разгоняет некую среду, и отделяет вакуум от материи. Вот этот вакуум и будет тёмной материей вокруг всех вращающихся объектов, включая звезды, чёрные дыры, и галактики. А внутри объектов, например, внутри планет, вращающееся ядро тоже создаёт вакуум, который держит планету, не давая ей разлететься. Тоже можно назвать это тёмной материей. А можно, гравитацией. Возможно, Ривер имел ввиду такую модель, просто не знал, как вам объяснить?
River is a troll Olga, period. Why do I think this?
First of all he is wrong, about everything.
That's because he has not bothered to read up and study anything. So wrong and ignorant.
Those two things on their own are not trolling BUT with those things in mind, coming to a science website, making claims he has just made up, IS trolling.
Either he is young and uneducated and or stupid.
I feel sorry for him but he cannot just bungle into a good science platform spouting stupid ideas out of his head on the hard science threads.
 
James, what about the spin? What does it depend on?
He explained this:


..."angular momentum must be conserved, so it ends up mostly in two places: in the spins of the planets around their own axes and in the orbital angular momentum of the planets after formation."


To clarify: the spin of an object due to whatever kinetic energy was imparted upon it. Most of it comes from the intital coalescence of the gas and dust in the proto solar system, but even afterward, the rotation of the body can be changed by subsequent impacts.

For example: the Giant Impact Hypothesis suggests that Earth was hit by a small planetoid very early in its history, which would likely have changed the Earth's rotation rate, and, incidentally, formed the Moon.
 
Pin, why is it accepted here to constantly call people names? In Russia, calling someone stupid means insulting. Perhaps River meant that the rotation of objects in space is like whipping butter or cream from cream?
We have been dealing with river for over a decade. He has had time to behave if he wanted to.
Search this thread. Read how many times he has posted the same silly claim (or sometimes a conflicting silly claim) without any explanation of defense.
Heck, he isn't even able to form whole sentences; sometimes he just gives one word replies.
In all this time he has never attempted to communciate intelligently.

River has been banned from posting in the science forums because of his vexatious and repetitive drain on moderator time and effort (that's in the rules). This thread is posted in the Fringe forums because otherwise River would not be able to respond at all.

We started off patient. He burned thorugh patience and got to tolerance. We burned through tolerance and now we're sick of his wasting time and spreading misinformation for the hell of it.
 
He explained this:


..."angular momentum must be conserved, so it ends up mostly in two places: in the spins of the planets around their own axes and in the orbital angular momentum of the planets after formation."


To clarify: the spin of an object due to whatever kinetic energy was imparted upon it. Most of it comes from the intital coalescence of the gas and dust in the proto solar system, but even afterward, the rotation of the body can be changed by subsequent impacts.

For example: the Giant Impact Hypothesis suggests that Earth was hit by a small planetoid very early in its history, which would likely have changed the Earth's rotation rate, and, incidentally, formed the Moon.
Дэйв, это опять неточный перевод. Я спрашивала о спине частиц.
 
Dave, that's another mistranslation. I was asking about particle spin.
OK. Particle spin is a very different matter. Particles are essentially points, but it is not required for an object to be extended in space for it to have angular momentum.

It is not spin in the sense we usually think of. You can't add to it or take any away; it is an intrisnic property, and it is quantized - particles have either half-integer or integer values.

Fermions all have half-integer spin (1/2, 3/2, 5/2, etc.). These include the particles that make of matter (proton, electons, etc) and they obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle - which means you can't have two of them in the same place in the same state (this is why matter doesn't collapse, and why it is posisble to "fill" a box "full" of matter and not be able to add any more).

Bosons have integer spin (0, 1, 2, etc). These include photons (which make up all forms of radiation). They do not obey the PEP, whcoh means you can just keep filling a box full of bosons to your heart's content and it will never be full.

It's also weird that they don't necessarily just spin 360 degrees. Some particles, such as spin-2 particles, rotate throgh 720 degrees before returning to their initial state.

There's no real classical analogy to particle spin, so it's very difficult to describe in mere words, without resorting to the equations that define them. And that's kind of beyond the scope of this thread.
 
Gravity is from mass and rotation . Not just rotation . I've said this many times .
The Moon rotates once every 28 days while the Earth rotates 28 times. Shouldn't the Earths gravity be 28X stronger than the the moon? How does the math work?
 
Anybody , Explain rings around the planets . Without rotation .
Maths can't explain it . Nor why there are planetary rings in the first place . Since the center of the mass is where all physical objects should be heading towards . But are not .
 
Anybody , Explain rings around the planets . Without rotation .
Maths can't explain it . Nor why there are planetary rings in the first place . Since the center of the mass is where all physical objects should be heading towards . But are not .
Rings around planets involve rotation (angular/orbital velocity). Yes. So what?

No one has said otherwise. What's your point?


What you keep saying is that gravity depends on rotation. Which it does not.


At this point, I'm beginning to wonder what you mean when you use the word "gravity".
 
Rings around planets involve rotation (angular/orbital velocity). Yes. So what?

No one has said otherwise. What's your point?
Наверное, он имеет ввиду, что эти кольца должны вращаться вокруг центра масс.
 
Rings around planets involve rotation (angular/orbital velocity). Yes. So what?

No one has said otherwise. What's your point?
That rotation is a part of gravity . And gravity is more that just mass . The space between the rings and the planet . And is composition of the rings moving towards the planet or moving away from the planet and at what speed . Matters .
Rotation matters .
And I think that rotation is on the quantum scale .
 
Last edited:
Anybody , Explain rings around the planets . Without rotation .
Maths can't explain it . Nor why there are planetary rings in the first place . Since the center of the mass is where all physical objects should be heading towards . But are not .
Rings are stuff orbiting, that's it. They orbit because they are accelerating towards the planet in its gravitational field.
 
Please do not post nonsense and try to pretend it is science. Claims should be supported with arguments and/or evidence.
"But not" what? What do you think rings are?
rotation on the quantum scale that interacts with mass on the quantum scale , hence rings .
 
Back
Top