MigL

Your idea has all the appeal of string theory without the ;'elegant' math. Oh wait... That is the only appeal of string theory ! ( I joke )

So the matter/energy of a star collapses into the 5th dimension effectively disappearing, but the gravitational effects of the star's mass/energy are still evident in our 4d space-time ? And how would you account for charge and momentum which are also conserved and still evident after collapse ? Do they also 'leak through' ?

Neither a Black Hole or a ballerina 'gains' angular momentum or 'spinning' energy as they collapse or draw in their arms. Angular momentum is conserved. That is the cause of the increased spinning speed. Although rotating Black Holes do have some interesting effects on their local space-time, such as frame 'dragging'.

Tar, I like you, respect your opinion, and often agree with some of your opinions. But do you have to always take such a convoluted path to get to the point ? Your posts are full of anecdotes and have to be read carefully to get at the simple point which should have been clear in a few lines. It gets to the point that I don't want to read your 'wall of text' and I opt out of the discussion. Please, be more direct !

Sure, and you've now changed the system from a reversible process to an irreversible one.

Possible sources of uranium... The 'gatling' gun mounted in the nose of the A-10, the GAU-8, is capable of firing 30 mm, depleted uranium rounds ( at 4200 rounds/min ). The mass of the depleted uranium giving the round extra kinetic energy to enable penetration of tank armour. I know A-10s were used in the first Gulf war attacking retreating Iraqi armour, but wasn't aware that they are in theater now ( not sure if they are capable of using PGMs ).

Not necessarily Sensei. Pinging a slower, close router will result in a longer time than a farther, but faster router. But you're right, it is quickly sorted out once you ( the bus ) start moving.

The problem with America(ns) is that they wear their ideology like a shield to keep new ideas out. To some people, as soon as you mention the word Conservative/Republican, the idea is dismissed as nonsense/unworkable/prone to abuse by the rich/etc./etc. Hate to say it, but Overtone is an example, although some others come close. In his mind every problem has been caused by the Republicans and every issue discussed includes his take on how Republicans caused it ( he is right for some of them ). To others, as soon as you mention Liberal/Democrat, you get the same dismissal and similar reasons ( replace prone to abuse by rich with Commies and overspenders ). Waitforufo falls into that category, occasionally. No-one seems to consider ideas and policy on their merits, but through the blinders of ideology. Obama has done good work; In an advanced society, universal health care is a must and more Conservatives should have gotten behind that policy, and maybe raising the debt ceiling shouldn't have angered so many Republicans as it was needed because funding the wars they started was so expensive ( not that I agree that the solution to debt is to borrow more ). But even 'W' Bush did some good work with education initiatives. And wasn't it Nixon who finally got American boys out of Vietnam after Kennedy and Johnson escalated our ( sorry sometimes I consider myself American ) involvement ? ( I'd mention Nixon's opening trade relations with China, but I'm not sure if, in the long run, that was a good or bad move ) Its time liberals started backing good Republican policy and Conservatives started backing good Democrat policy. Enough divisiveness already. That is a problem ! ( that and that idiot/joke Trump )

The files in your x86 directory are for your installed 32 bit programs. The files in your x64 directory are for your installed 64 bit programs. If you RUN 'msconfig' and click the start-up tab, it will tell you which of those programs are set to autorun at start-up. An excessive amount of unused programs autorunning at start-up will cause long boot-up times. All others have to be opened when already in Windows to run, and so will not slow down your start-up. ( you can also see autorunning programs in the start-up tab of task manager, but they can only be stopped from there, not disabled )

Don't know about geese, but I hear a quack. ( just kidding TJ MC, I just couldn't resist )

I see. I'm taking a narrow view ( from kinetic theory ) and trying to apply it generally ( where it doesn't necessarily work ). Thank you, gentlemen.

Thanks, for the info.

So why can't I express the energy of a particle by its equivalent temperature ? Its done all the time, in colliders as well as descriptions of the early universe. Please elaborate Swansont.

Energy can be expressed as a temperature.

Could be that our hunter/gatherer long-gone ancestors would have had bad teeth also had they lived past the ripe old age of 35. I would venture teeth are like tires, they have a wear rating. Maybe agrarian societies outlived their hunter/gatherer fathers, and just like present day humans, outlast their teeth.

For No.3 the point I was trying to make is that if T is small enough and accurate enough, how would you know you are at 0.9c, or at rest for that matter. Plug in some numbers for a particular particle of a specific mass; a Planck time unit in the HUP leads to a sizeable uncertainty in the energy, from which you can establish the uncertainty in speed ( for that mass ).

1- I believe I speculated on this in your other thread 'Introductory Question'. A causal ( information ) disconnect at any time, past and present, leads to failure of the isotropic principle, on which much of modern cosmology is based. It leads to different 'domains' of our universe, with differing expansions/properties; Which I don't particularly like. I tend to use it as an argument against an infinite universe, but it doesn't really convince me. 2- If you're going to 'borrow' energy from the universe to create a virtual particle pair, and then separate them using electromagnetic means ( for anti-particles of opposing charge ), you will in fact create real particles. But the universe still wants its energy back, and it will take it from the apparatus used to separate the virtual particles. The net effect is that the apparatus supplies the energy for the 'creation' of these particles. This is basically the mechanism for Hawking radiation, where the apparatus is the Black Hole ( and gravity is the means ). 3- At small separations where you would expect this effect, time and energy are related by the Uncertainty Principle. Measuring time that accurately results in an extremely large uncertainty, or fuzziness, of the energy you measure. Energy and speed are related through momentum, so effectively, in that extremely brief ( and accurate ) time slice, you CANNOT know the speed. ( remember to throw all common, everyday sense out the window when dealing with the quantum world ) 4- All depends on what your definition of 'space' is.

Correct me if I'm assuming too much, Skins. It seems to me you are confusing space with the co-ordinate system, which is nothing more than x, y, z, and ict. It is the co-ordinate system in the mathematical model which is warped by mass-energy. If you actually expect to see a curvature in space ( much less time ), its not going to happen. We 'see' things moving in space-time along certain paths, and this is consisent ( extremely ) with geodesics in the warped co-ordinate system of our mathematical model, which is GR. So no, GR doesn't change as a result of your interpretation, but why introduce unnecessary complexity where none is needed? It doesn't account for any previously unexplaned observations, and may introduce some problems with the 'source' of the space-time flow. If yor interpretation gave some insight as to how gravity behaves at the qanutm level or at discontinities/infinities then, it might warrant further investigation. which is what string theory and loop qantum gravity are trying to do And string theory, with your interpretation, only complicates things further. While elegant ( so I'm told, I can't follow the math ) it doesn't explain anything from first principles ( yet ). Sorry seem to be having problems with a stck 'u' on the keyboard of one of my laptops.

Don't know about bombing Paris. Too much culture and history would be lost. But I'm all for bombing California. Especially that Hollywood area. No culture at all. Way too tacky and glitzy.

I see this as merely a difference in interpretation, so correct me if I'm wrong Skins. You interpret gravity as space-time 'flowing into massive objects, whereas the standard interpretation is a 'warping' of space-time by massive ( and energetic) objects. And as I've previously stated, this makes no difference as space-time is simply a co-ordinate system. Why wold you think there would be an energy loss if either the 'flow' was added to, or the 'curvature' was compounded ? And why poor Newton is accused of being wrong, I don't nderstand; None of this is Newtonian gravity. As to why you would want to model gravity on a 'flow' of space-time, yuo need to consider a 'source' for this space-time 'flowing' down a gradient into a 'sink'. This 'source' or divergence cannot be accounted for by space-time expansion ( dark/vacuum energy ) as that woldn't explain gravity within bound systems ( solar systems, galaxies, etc. ) where there is no expansion. So what I'm saying is, the standard GR interpretation works ( extremely well ) and has none of the 'downsides' of your model. And absoltely nothing abot boxes !

What, no Christmas presents for the rest of us, Studiot ? "Bah, Humbug !"

Thanks J.C., I should have made that clearer. The additional gravitational force generated by a spinning planetary system is, as others have told you ( and even given approximate vales for ) trivial compared to a non-spinning one. Whether they are spinning on a plane, retrograde or even on differing axis makes little difference to the trivially small contribtion.

You gotta watch those twisty, narrow, mountain roads Mike ( hope you and your passengers are OK ). I an well familiar with the area. ( beautiful though, ain't it ? )

Oh come on guys, cut him some slack... Up until last year we didn't know what gave the property of mass to leptons, and so we called it the 'God Particle'. Now we know ( reasonably ) and we call it the Higgs mechanism. Is that the example you were looking for John ? ( said with tongue firmly in cheek )

The original question asked about forces generated by spinning a rock about yourself, and I believe I included any "energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning". Planets in orbit are no different. The only way for this energy to be sizeable, I,e. non-trivial, is if the rock was being spun at relativistic speeds. It would then add enough energy to the whole system such as to generate 'extra' gravitational force. ( yes, energy gravitates )