Sorry, if the integration is done with higher precision it turns out to be
the traditional one.
But it is still useful for determining the gravity from other geometries. I
think it is bad that bodies are approximated with point sources in their
"center of gravity".
David
>From David Johnson
> Sorry, if the integration is done with higher precision
> it turns out to be the traditional one.
>
> But it is still useful for determining the gravity from other
> geometries. I think it is bad that bodies are approximated with
> point sources in their "center of g
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Are you saying that gravity behaves in the "traditional" (Newtonian) way
inside solid bodies? Do you have links or papers to experiments that
support this? As I said, there are reported anomalies inside boreholes.
How do you or others explain them?
Take int
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:39:30 -0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>Take into account that although gravity can be related to mass and
>density, that is, it can have a dependency on mass and density, that
>does not mean mass and density are the causes of gravity. Indeed, it
>makes a l
On 11/27/2010 04:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:39:30 -0300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Take into account that although gravity can be related to mass and
>> density, that is, it can have a dependency on mass and density, that
>> does not mean mas
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:43:01 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Well, again - he detects lots of copper as a transmutation product
Well at least he detects SIMS peaks from 63-65 (BTW the 64 could as easily have
been Ni-64).
>, and my
>comment is that, like Mills, radioactivity
6 matches
Mail list logo
