sci.physics.particle

On Apr 5, 10:58=A0am, Kumar wrote:
> On Apr 5, 12:16=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 2:13=A0pm, Kumar wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 4, 3:46=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 4, 1:23=A0pm, Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 4, 2:35=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 4, 10:38=A0am, Kumar wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 3, 12:22=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > =A0 > =A0-
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > yess
>
> > > > > > > > gravity is even while mass A and B do not move
> > > > > > > > mutually
>
> > > > > > > > ATB
> > > > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > > > -------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Still things within mass move. Instead of mass or alongwith ma=
ss, can
> > > > > > > we consider "inter & intra-particle/substance" motions as a me=
diator
> > > > > > > or creater of GF?
> > > > > > > Motions can be dependant on other three forces, heat etc.- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > ------------
> > > > > > indeed even if big mass A and B are even not in relative motion
> > > > > > thee still inside movement of subparticles of A and B
>
> > > > > > but the point is that
> > > > > > **there must be messengers that ;fountain **outside*
> > > > > > of those masses A and B
> > > > > > so it is those messengers that do the job
> > > > > > the inner motion can be only
> > > > > > *an indirect* cause for those messengers
> > > > > > to burst outwards
> > > > > > (that is how i personally see it
> > > > > > i dont have a direct line to God =A0(:-))
>
> > > > > > ATB
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Whatever be the motion, whether inside or outside, can it be motio=
n
> > > > > which create/interpret as gravitational force(GF)?
>
> > > > any force is created by collision of particles or subaprticles
>
> > > > if two cars run side by side
> > > > there is no force =A0between them
> > > > (if you neglect the wind dradft)
> > > > that is what you can see or senseor not sense =A0in your steering we=
el
> > > > while gravitation is wayes weaker force
> > > > may orders of mgnitude weaker than say EM firce
>
> > > > the fact that we a re attracted sostringly to earth
> > > > is not because the gravitation is a stron force
> > > > betwwen small masses as i and you are
> > > > but
> > > > a force between us and the huge mass of earth !!
>
> > > > yet we cannot see those messengers'gravitins )
> > > > =A0that go it
> > > > but we strongly guess they are there
> > > > not passive and not static but runnibg lkie mad
> > > > back anc forth
> > > > 2
> > > > may be tell =A0 =A0me what is in your mind?
> > > > iw were do you stricde to (or row to )??
>
> > > > ATB
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > ---------------------------
>
> > > > Otherwise, how GF
>
> > > > > is created?
>
> > > > > During car race, whether two similar cars running in same directio=
n
> > > > > attract/pull each other?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Simply, can't that force be somewhat centripetal force due to the
> > > motion in and of all masses(at micro & macroscopic levels)?
>
> > > In F=3DG. M1M2/r2 or in F=3DG.Mm/r2...can we consider M or m as
> > > motion(internal motions of SAP and of mass as a whole) insstead of
> > > mass?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ---------------
> > let me tell you that i am the last one on that planet
> > that is ready to substitute mass by anything
> > fo rme
> > **no mass - no eal physics **!!!
>
> > fo rme it is
> > kilogram =A0meter =A0second =A0 =A0-- is physics
> > you have to consder that
> > a centripetal force is not dome by some mysterious
> > basic entities
> > it is done by more **basic* physical entities like
> > mass movement
> > fo rme energy is mass in movement
> > it is not ghosts in movement
> > and forces are created only by mass collissions
> > not by spititualistic ghosts behavious
> > in shorty:
>
> > 'No mass no real physics
>
> > isnt that not simple ??
> > why look for vague complicated =A0systems ??
> > (thoug i am noty in principle against creative
> > innovative ideas ...but it must be somehow convinsive .)
>
> > ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I have not considered & mentioned Gravitational force(GF) by a
> mystrious entity(except prime force if there). Instead of mass, I am

there i sno force without motion and mass
and collission of mass
----------
> just considering motion in and of a mass/body as a creater/mediator of
> GF.
ok that is my oppinion as well !!
----------
Mass may also be dependant on motion. Say for example, if we tie a
> mass/object to a string at one end and a weighing scale on other end
> and if we rotate. Weighing scale will so progressive increase in
> weight =A0of that Mass . If we leave it, it will fall quickly on earth


i am not sure i understood your example

but please note
if you exsrt force by changing the innitial position
of the system
you exerted force
the same as if you accelerate the mass
and while aceleration the mass the force needed is bigger
not the mass becoming bigger
it is not

F =3D gamma m a^2

it is
F/gamma =3D ma^2 (mremeins constant )!

------------
> that if we just through it. Do all these don't indicate that
> gravitational force can be dependant on motion & motion can also be
> dependant on other fundamental forces.
------------
motioncan be eternal without any force involved
------------
>
> For me, there may not be anything hidden, mysterious or supernatural,
> but it can be yet unknown in science.-

i agree withthat
yet my suggestion is the 'Circlon '(:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
-----------------
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -