J.C.MacSwell

Gravitational field?

Science books don't say that! I know my post raises that as a question but it's not even a half baked idea. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I try to make it clear when I'm off the beaten path. In fact I suspect it has been ruled out (given certain assumptions), but I've never seen it before. As to the rest of your post no one really knows in non-mathematical terms. I find it interesting how people "picture" subatomic levels.

Thank-you. You caught me thinking a little too "2-D".

What about the protons. Obviously they add momentum. Are they sufficiently shielded by their electrons to not play a part in the interaction (more directly than cancelling out part of their electrons fields while transmitting their momentum also through interactions with their electrons)? I'm thinking in the case of elastic collisions.

I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range". Good question and would find it interesting how others picture this. Two thoughts come to mind: 1. Wave interference in a pond where the waves essentially "go through each other and keep moving". I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules (though they are already "in range" prior to the wave). The wave continues but the molecules return to their original positions except for minor (mostly surface) effects. 2. Gravity: Any possibility (probably not but why not?) that outside of my "in range" there is a small residual (not quite cancelled out) electromagnetic effect that could be the gravitational field? Any thoughts?

Closer as in : Venus does not look to be much further off the "main" plane of the planets (which I am assuming would be close to Jupiter's plane of orbit) than Earth does, just that it's on the "other side". But it looks like they used Earth's plane of orbit as the baseline. so Venus looks further "off" (which I'm guessing brought about the post/remark about Venus. This made me wonder what plane of rotation the sun itself had. Another thought is: "how about the asteroid belt"?

It looks like Earth is used as the baseline. If Jupiter was used Venus would be closer than what is shown. Question: How does the Sun's rotation line up?

That's not what you said next week!

Don't you do this (immeasurably) every time you move (accelerate, decelerate, change direction)?

Does a "pendulum oscillation" have mass? (no?). Could a pendulum swing at lightspeed in a strong enough gravitational field? (no again?)

Not "just" but in part, the way I perceive it (which is probably wrong). To be more precise (read wrong again) I see it as the rest mass of the object but not of the molecule.

Won't it rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere all other things being equal? I live at 45 degrees latitude. I think the force is stronger here than, say, 5 degrees latitude. But is it also stronger here than at the North Pole? My "completely still" 2 foot diameter basin of water would have more "potential" (insert correct terminology here for the differences in the velocity squareds) across my north/south 2 feet (relative to a polar axis rest frame) than in the other 2 cases.

Neglecting friction does gravity "wear away Your momentum"? (I think it does in some theories but not in others).

Isn't it just intensity?

If the hole is between the poles and you neglect friction you will accelerate to the center starting at 0 velocity and maximum acceleration until you reach the center at maximum velocity and 0 acceleration. You would then reverse the process (acceleration wise) as you continue to the other pole and come to a stop (for an instant) before heading back. Other "direct routes" would include a corriolis (sp?) like "force" (pseudo force)which will deflect you against the sides of the hole.

Good point. As a minimum you would lose the "head" height of the jet trajectory (or exit) above the waterline. This would also add to the displacement (effective weight) of the craft unless the jet was redirected downward which would of course lose even more forward thrust.

I think that's right. In another thread I claimed a photon absorbed by an atom added/created matter to the atom but was convinced that strictly speaking (particle physics definition) that was incorrect. That portion of the energy did not represent matter even though you have a mass increase.

Assuming all other things being more or less equal (diameter of jet etc.): Below the waterline the surrounding water would provide more back pressure than the air above and therefore more thrust for the same power. Because you would be effectively propelling more mass aftward (relative to the body of water or freestream) you would be imparting more momentum for the same power. (the exit velocity would actually be slower). So more of the energy would go to the craft and less to the jet. Hope this makes sense.

Below.