Re: Gravitational Anisotropy

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 03/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:18:40 GMT

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4224D72E.FB801F14@hate.spam.net...
> Fusioneer wrote:
>>
>> GRAVITATIONAL ANISOTROPY
>>
>> What is gravitational anisotropy? If there is a main body of mass
>> around which are situated many far less massive bodies then the
>> physical shape of the main body should have an effect on the
>> distribution and evident gravitational relationships of the lessor
>> bodies to the main mass. For example, if the mass of the sun were truly
>> concentrated into a sphere then the gravitational field produced by
>> such a physical geometry should be a spherically symmetric field that
>> would be ruled only by the inverse square law and there would be no
>> preferred orientation of the planes upon which other bodies should
>> collect in orbits around the sun.
>
> Not true on several counts: Frame dragging and other mass-current
> effects from the (differentially) rotating body. Dicke addressed
> solar mass distribution vs. Mercury's perihelion advance, as did
> others following. It doesn't make a difference compared to other,
> larger effects.
>
> A body orbiting in a divergent gravitational field will preferentially
> align with its longest axis radial to the barycenter of mass. If it
> is spherically symmetric it will still suffer quadrupole tidal
> distortions, re the Roche limit.
>
>> In other words, the planes of orbits
>> should have no preferential orientation.
>
> This is not true.
> [snip 180 lines]
>
> Christ you puke a lot of text without saying anything.
>
>> 6. And moreover, the evidence, I believe points to the existence of a
>> super dense matter ring near the stellar core.
>
> and so the *** appears.
>
>> Charles Cagle
>
> Ha ha ha.

Harry Chrishna farted, and the Himalayas rose on cue.

Quantcast