Questions About Space.

[rich]

What is a moon? Started this discussion, because I do not know.

Think they are a satellite of whichever planet they came from, for they orbit about the planet from where they came.


Imagine the energy used to put such a molten mass of matter there, to escape the gravitational pull of its mother planet.

Then a cooling off period.

Is my assumption correct?

How many years to cool off?

Some planets have many separate moons, all on different orbits.

Why did they stop where they did, to start their orbit?

If none know the answer, that is ok, just wondering.

[...]

..7 years ago there was this article in a newspaper about a Dutch theoretical scientist, Vincent Icke, who spent hours thinking about why space does not weigh anything. This quandry arose because particles appear and disappear in space, and throughout the galaxy all those particles should amount to some weight at least. But it doesn't.

I wrote him a letter explaining him why space does not have weight assuming it should have because of those particles, but never got a reply...

[rich]

...,

maybe all particles are falling now, to their eventual destruction,
and do not remain still long enough to take a weight measurement?

[...]

..energy cannot be destroyed richie, that's one of the basic laws of physics. According to Rupert Sheldrake morfo-genetic fields exists that 'catch' re-appearing particles until enough matter is gathered to form any kind of system. The influx of particles into space through blackhole exhausts is in balance with the capture of particles by these morfo-genetic fields, and thus nature's equilibrium is achieved without effort :D

[sahyo]

thus thus nature's equilibrium is achieved without effort without effort

how can "nature's equilibrium is achieved" when cannot 'notequilibrium'?

[...]

..without effort means that any other way is impossible; just having fun :rolleyes:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 4 2003, 06:20 AM
how can "nature's equilibrium is achieved" when cannot 'notequilibrium'?
The term 'equilibrium' implies a stable dynamic state where all ongoing processes completely 'balance' one another such that there is no overall 'change' of the system's 'state'.

There are also processes in 'nature' which (on 'balance') result in 'progressive' change of the system's 'state' in this or that energy-manifestation 'direction'.

'Nature' really operates/flows in 'stages' -- each 'stage'-'state' remaining in 'equilibrium' for a duration of time, in the course of which a 'new' 'state' may be said to 'gestate' and, ultimately, be 'born' in a new stage-state manifestation which one might say has a 'new' or 'different' 'equilibrium·stage' 'setting' -- like when and as ice turns into water and water turns into steam, each such 'state' having its own 'equilibirum'-characteristics.

Yes, it is possible to 'see' such 'transitional' 'changes' as all being part of a 'greater' (more 'overall') equilibrium, asheera, but such model totally 'hides' the fact that there are both 'stable' steady-states and 'unstable' change-inclined states within the 'overall' system, where sequentially-developing "Life" (movement, interaction, growth, evolution, etc.) relationally takes time-n-place 'in' Reality.

In this regard, my opinion is that it is 'best' (i.e., 'most' creatively life-art functional), to acknowledge [B]both[/U] such 'levels' of 'truth' (a 'different' 'level' being 'illustrated' by each such 'model').

But I'm sure there's always be those who prefer just hopping about on one model·view 'foot' because they 'see' the 'other' 'foot' as being inherently 'defective' in some 'important' way, instead of what makes the most sense to me, which is to learn and choose to 'walk on both feet', 'integrating' 'knowledge' in a way that is custom-suited to whatever 'terrain' is being 'navigated' at any given space-n-time moment-point.

With such I would still 'argue' that both model-feet are good (i.e., creatively 'useful') 'tools'. Everything depends on the adeptitude of the ones 'using' them, such adeptitude, of course, necessarily also referring to the capacity to 'recognize' when and where it's 'best' (in terms of possible 'results') to 'use' which of them.

[rich]

A few random thoughts/questions on space and matter, equilibrium= water seeking its own level. Is that premise true for all liquids? It appears to be.

Why is it, that when one blows bubbles with a bubble pipe, the shape they assume are globular, resembling suns and planets of the universe?

It must be some law of nature, that control its shape, the same law which the form of the planets are subject to.

If I were a real scientist, I would have a mathematical formula for these laws.

Do these bubbles have any weight, since they are able to float in the air?

Still if they are able to be seen, what is seen must have some weight. What we see, are soap suds and hot air floating.

Wonder which weighs more, the soap suds or hot air? Maybe both weigh the same, for the sake of equiibrium? :unsure: :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

..without effort means that any other way is impossible; just having fun

didn't happen noticing "without effort without effort"ed when quoted...hehe

yes impossible...happening can't "any other way", eh ;)

[sahyo]

The term 'equilibrium' implies a stable dynamic state where all ongoing processes completely 'balance' one another such that there is no overall 'change' of the system's 'state'.

There are also processes in 'nature' which (on 'balance') result in 'progressive' change of the system's 'state' in this or that energy-manifestation 'direction'.

is 'awhere' which is or isn't "equilibrium"?

thinkingpastfuture"progressive"....is 'awhere'pastfuture, david?

can separate saying "change"notchange'?

[sahyo]

david often posts referring 'creating' as though not happening asheera posts
....does david think creating not happening?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Dec 4 2003, 06:11 PM

Why is it, that when one blows bubbles with a bubble pipe, the shape they assume are globular, resembling suns and planets of the universe?

It must be some law of nature, that control its shape, the same law which the form of the planets are subject to.


Interesting observation about the bubbles Richie. The same is true for blowing glass, when the glass cools enough to touch, but is still pliable, the glassblower then strtches/manipulates it into the desired shape.

As for the planets & moons, I thought gravity was responsible for them & how they are shaped.

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Dec 5 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Dec 5 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Dec 4 2003, 06:11 PM

Why is it, that when one blows bubbles with a bubble pipe, the shape they assume are globular, resembling suns and planets of the universe?

It must be some law of nature, that control its shape, the same law which the form of the planets are subject to.


Interesting observation about the bubbles Richie. The same is true for blowing glass, when the glass cools enough to touch, but is still pliable, the glassblower then strtches/manipulates it into the desired shape.

As for the planets & moons, I thought gravity was responsible for them & how they are shaped. [/b][/quote]
Sonrisa,
while planet was being made and molded, was gravity already there,? :unsure: :)

[a random hack]

sphericity of liquids in other media, air, space, etc, is due to good old surface tension, one of my favorites :D

[sonrisa]

yeah. that's right. Also why the bubbles pop. Hope you enjoyed your b'day. :P

[a random hack]

uuummmm, thanks :P

[...]

..an analogy on the nature of space; here in Haarlem they've converted an old church into appartments by gutting the church entirely and then erecting a totally new building inside the outer walls of the old church.

What can be seen of the universe is like an appartmentcomplex building/built within [notseparate] centerless field of space/consciousness...

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 4 2003, 04:55 PM
david often posts referring 'creating' as though not happening asheera posts
....does david think creating not happening?
Since I personally think/believe that we (everything and everyone 'in' existence) are constantly being recreated (play = re·creation); in effect, that 'we' continually re·create our 'selves' and our 'relational patterns', I don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by "david often posts referring 'creating' as though not happening."

Adding "asheera posts" to the end of it suggests that you may mean that you think ;) that I think <_< your posts aren't 'creative', so assuming that that is what your next question "does david think creating not happening?" is about, let me say, in response, that what I actually think is that your posts are just as 'creative' as anyone else's here, asheera. Maybe what you are picking up on when (if) you think that I think that "creating not happening" is my (communicated) 'sense' that your view and (hence) you contribution here is 'reductionist' to the point where Life is or, if more people thought like you, would be 'significantly' 'poorer' (i.e., less 'creative') for it. An example of this is what you said (what you in effect 'did' or 'tried to do' with your reductive 'nots') in relation to John MacEnulty's creatively 'rich' (IMO) piece on Meditation. You heap big other-people's*-party-celebration-pooper, though very 'creative' in the way you go about it, IMO.

[* Note: that is, when the 'music' they're playing is too 'rich' for your blood, and therefore 'threatens' to move you 'out' of your 'comfort zone'.]

But this is just 'a shot in the dark' on my part. Because of the way you phrase your message, I have no idea whether I am really addressing the subject you had in mind-n-heart when making it.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ...@Dec 7 2003, 03:15 AM
..an analogy on the nature of space; here in Haarlem they've converted an old church into appartments by gutting the church entirely and then erecting a totally new building inside the outer walls of the old church.

What can be seen of the universe is like an appartmentcomplex building/built within [notseparate] centerless field of space/consciousness...
Elegantly comm·uni·cative analogy, Dots.

Appreciatively, David :ph34r: (zen bowing)

[...]

..nevertheless David, words always fall short of truth but can be fun regardless :P

[robbullett]

:unsure: A bubble, being a thin transparent film of liquid enclosing an accumulation of gas is generally spherical, but not always. I have seen square or rectangular bubbles on television shows. Can anyone explain please?

[sonrisa]

perhaps, being on television, the picture was digitally modified?

[rich]

Originally posted by robbullett@Jan 21 2004, 12:58 AM
:unsure: A bubble, being a thin transparent film of liquid enclosing an accumulation of gas is generally spherical, but not always. I have seen square or rectangular bubbles on television shows. Can anyone explain please?
:huh: robbullett, A rectangle with sharp or rounded corners ?
More like an ellipse? Sounds like it is worth a search on the internet. :knockout:

[rich]

Originally posted by robbullett@Jan 21 2004, 12:58 AM
:unsure: A bubble, being a thin transparent film of liquid enclosing an accumulation of gas is generally spherical, but not always. I have seen square or rectangular bubbles on television shows. Can anyone explain please?

Dear robbullitt,

THIS ARTICLE IS WAY BEYOND MY SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING,
Though I found article in searching for gas bubbles other than spherical, and skimming through the article, explanations are there, to answer your questions. They are beyond my understanding and interest. Believe you will have to download Adobe Reader in order to reads the information. :duh: :think:

1
DYNAMICS OF BUBBLES
IN CONDITIONS OF GAS HYDRATE FORMATION
Nail A. Gumerov & Georges L. Chahine
DYNAFLOW, Inc.
Fulton, Maryland, USA
ABSTRACT
The objective of the present paper is to develop fundamentals
of theory describing dynamics of gas bubbles in hydrate formation
conditions. For this purpose our own experimental observations of
methane bubble dynamics are analyzed and mechanisms of
diffusion and heat transfer controlling bubble collapse are
evaluated.

[Article deleted, too much trash in there, please post a link instead, Greetings from admin]

[sonrisa]

was the article beyond your scope of understanding too Thomas? :D


ps I saw the thing before you deleted it. It was beyond my scope of understanding as well.

[rich]

Rich posted QUOTE (robbullett @ Jan 21 2004, 12:58 AM)
A bubble, being a thin transparent film of liquid enclosing an accumulation of gas is generally spherical, but not always. I have seen square or rectangular bubbles on television shows. Can anyone explain please?*


Dear robbullitt,

THIS ARTICLE IS WAY BEYOND MY SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING,
Though I found article in searching for gas bubbles other than spherical, and skimming through the article, explanations are there, to answer your questions. They are beyond my understanding and interest. Believe you will have to download Adobe Reader in order to reads the information.*

1
DYNAMICS OF BUBBLES
IN CONDITIONS OF GAS HYDRATE FORMATION
Nail A. Gumerov & Georges L. Chahine
DYNAFLOW, Inc.
Fulton, Maryland, USA
ABSTRACT
The objective of the present paper is to develop fundamentals
of theory describing dynamics of gas bubbles in hydrate formation
conditions. For this purpose our own experimental observations of
methane bubble dynamics are analyzed and mechanisms of
diffusion and heat transfer controlling bubble collapse are
evaluated.

[Article deleted, too much trash in there, please post a link instead, Greetings from admin]


This post has been edited by Thomas Knierim on Jan 23 2004, 11:23 AM

--------------------
we all are different,

try understanding why.

~-----Peace-----~

~------rich------~

*
*


IT WAS DELETED! Now I'll have to go to the trouble of looking for the link. {more work for richie}
darn it. My Webpage (http://auto.search.msn.com/response.asp?.MT=dfifferent+shapes+of+gas+bubbles+ other+than+spherical&srch=50&utfb)

My Webpage posted wrong link. Sorry Bullitt, but, " the hell with it". Not worth the trouble. No one would understand anyway. :o :D

[sonrisa]

here it is RT, I mean, please click here... (http://www.dynaflow-inc.com/Reports/web_hydrates.pdf)

[Thomas Knierim]

Richie: IT WAS DELETED!

Sorry Richie, nothing personal. Bringing interesting articles to the attention of our members is certainly in the spirit of thebigview.com and I always appreciate that. However, copying lengthy materials into the board is generally not a good idea, because it bloats our database, there may be technical copying problems (such as in the article you posted), and finally there might be copyright issues. A hyperlink will elegantly solve all these problems. Please don’t get me wrong - it’s okay to post quotes and citations of “reasonable” length. However, for a whole article or technical paper, a hyperlink is more suitable.

Sonrisa: Was the article beyond your scope of understanding too Thomas?

I would say it was beyond the scope of my willingness to spend time with it. I am sure the dynamics of bubbles is a very fascinating subject, though.

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

I understand reason for deleting, Thomas.

Sorry for not posting the link, originally.

Thanks sonrisa. :) :lol:

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jan 29 2004, 12:38 AM
there may be technical copying problems (such as in the article you posted),

there was an article specifically about non-spherical bubbles at that site, but I couldn't get the link to copy properly here on the board, so I finally gave up.


Sonrisa: Was the article beyond your scope of understanding too Thomas?

I would say it was beyond the scope of my willingness to spend time with it. I am sure the dynamics of bubbles is a very fascinating subject, though.

Cheers, Thomas


I hacked around in that site for awhile. What I find fascinating is that these dudes are pulling down what, $100 grand apiece, maybe more?- to play around with bubbles. So I applied for a job there!! :D

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: What I find fascinating is that these dudes are pulling down what, $100 grand apiece, maybe more?

Hundred "K" per what? Per bubble? :o

Thomas

[sonrisa]

yeah, that would work!! :) :thumbsup:
what I meant was, each of the researchers are probably making $100K per year, possibly more, to play with bubbles. :)

I like your interpretation better! :)

[todd]

how can "nature's equilibrium is achieved" when cannot 'notequilibrium'? asheera, Dec 4th, 2003



The term 'equilibrium' implies a stable dynamic state where all ongoing processes completely 'balance' one another such that there is no overall 'change' of the system's 'state'. DavidS, Dec 5th, 2003



I think there are only 2 possible points of view here:

1.There is no, never, ever equilibrium. Equilibrium is absolute static, void, -273.15…
“Dynamic equilibrium” is just an illusion generated by a certain chosen referential.

2. There is only equilibrium. We only have troubles seeing the whole, able to perceive only some singularities. Dynamic is part of this equilibrium, an illusion.

Anything in between is just the inability to comprehend.

I think asheera referred to the second one, am I right?