granpa

then you reply to the op. or start a new thread.

no annihilation. one of the delta baryons even breaks down into a proton and positron (and some neutrinos I guess)

I can only speak for myself but on forums where I must select a post before using quick reply I dont just select the last post because I like to quote the post that I'm replying to.

of course 99% of people use linear view. threaded view doesnt work. I'm from craigslist forums and I miss threaded view. it would help keep threads on-topic since it would be easy to 'prune' branches that go off-topic. jus-say-n Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4

might I suggest that allowing people to post a reply without specifying which post it is in response to renders threaded view pretty well useless. seems to me that making that impossible would be a minor change.

its standard mainstream textbook electrostatics. look it up. why is everyone dancing around the question that I asked? why was my post declared to be 'nonsense'?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=DI8&q=%22before+the+big+bang%22+time+start+beginning+forum&btnG=Search

the question that was asked (not by me but by the person I was responding to) is why is gravitational potential energy considered negative. the question that I asked is why was my post declared to be 'nonsense'.

thank you for the response. I dont think getting into rest mass is necessary. the formula relates the kinetic energy of the particles and the energy in the field up to the point that the field disappears. thats good enough for what I am saying. you can interpret it any way that is convenient for you. I'm not sure what you mean by 'sum of charges' and 'dipolar field'. the dipole field is exactly what I've been talking about.

thats fine and true but irrelevant. "This says nothing about the energy in the field". thats why its irrelevant. we are specifically talking about the energy stored in the field. which at any one point is proportional to the square if the field intensity at that point. integrate over all space holding the field to get the total energy stored in the field. when 2 antiparticles collide their field vanish so the energy stored in their fields must be defined in such a way that it becoms zero at that point. if you are unaware of this fact from electrostatics then you shouldnt be arguing against it. you should look it up.

I already have. the energy in the field at any one point is proportianal to the square of the intensity of the field at that point. integrate over all space of the field to get the total energy. this is well known in elecrostatics. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?act=Q&ID=50107820

nothing in that post would apply to that situation. I said nothing about the field at any one point. it was about the total energy in the field of one isolated electron vs the total energy in the field of 2 electrons that completely overlap. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged since 'both these numbers must be positive' then I assume you are referring to the example of the 2 charged particles. in that case the first positive number refers to the knietic energy and the second negative number refers to the total energy in the field. as the kinetic energy becomes higher the field becomes smaller. in fact if the 2 charges are equal then the field will eventually vansh completely. therefore the energy in the field must approach zero as the kinetic energy approaches its maximum. otherwise (by your reasoning) when the field vanishes completely you would still say that it holds energy.

for any isolated system of 2 interacting charged particles the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy is constant (energy is conserved). as the kinetic energy becomes larger the fields become smaller. therefore both energies are considered positive. for any isolated system of 2 interacting masses the sum of the kinetic energy and the potential energy is also constant but as the kinetic energy becomes larger the fields also become larger. therefore the energy in the field is considered negative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#Notable_Life_programs I can personally vouch for 'life32'. its fast and the field isnt limited in size.

when 2 oppositely charged particles spontaneously merge their electric fields cancel. but when 2 masses spontaneously merge their gravitational fields add. particles with spin can spontaneously align parallel in which case their fields add or they can spontaneously align antiparallel in which case their fields cancel. it depends, I gather, on whether they are spin 'up' or spin 'down'. it is well known in electrostatics that the energy in the electric field at any given point is proportional to the square of the intensity of the field at that point. all very simple and entirely mainstream yet the following post was declared 'nonsense' on a certain other forum. (it was in response to a question about why the energy in the gravitational field is considered to be negative energy) I have no idea why. what did I do wrong?

map=space=metric=man made abstract idea territory=external physical reality

as they say: the map isnt the territory.

from the op: these hypothetical gravity waves pass through the bulk of the sun but are absorbed in the rarified solar atmosphere.

just one quick note. I just found out that there is a precedent for atoms only absorbing certain waves when in a highly rarefied state. that is 'forbidden transitions'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_transition

I know that but split brain research shows that it is possible to have more than one separate being in one brain without the person even knowing it.

look up 'split brain' research.

how many is a number line?

ok. thanx for the replies. the answer seems to be no. here is an interesting read. especially the part about Thermal overheating. http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/research/planet_observation/questions.html

and how hot is jupiters ionosphere?

according to that post 470 m/s is room temp. the ionosphere is much hotter.