# The Ping-Pong Ball and The Sun / S D Rodrian

0 views

### Aardvark

Oct 8, 2009, 3:11:47 PM10/8/09
to
The Ping-Pong Ball and The Sun.

[A mind experiment--Therefore, if
you do not have a mind, forget it.]

Imagine a magical ping-pong ball
which is only affected by gravity.
That is its only quality. (Therefore
it can travel inside the Sun without
being destroyed.) Now...

This ping-pong ball is approaching
the surface of the Sun. As it does so
the pull of the Sun's gravity gradually
increases on the ping-pong ball.

[When it is at the Sun's surface,
the pull of the Sun's gravity on
the ping-pong ball will be at its
maximum.]

The instant the ping-pong ball plunges
past the surface of the Sun, the pull of
the Sun's gravity on the ping-pong ball
will begin to decrease.

[This is because as the ping-pong ball
travels closer and closer to the center
of the Sun: the mass pulling on the
ping-pong ball is decreasing, all the time
that there will be a growing amount of
Sun-mass behind it pulling back on it.]

Once the ping-pong ball reaches the center
of the Sun it will achieve gravity equilibrium
and lie forever suspended there (at the exact
center of a great hollow).

Conclusions from the above
thought experiment:

There is either a huge cavity at the center
of the Sun, or certainly a cavernous region
therein where there isn't as much Sun-
matter as there must be surrounding it.
According to the current laws of gravity.

However, current theory says that the center
of the Sun (of every star) is the place where
the greatest amount of pressure exists. In
fact: It is at the center of every star that the
fusion that keeps a star "going" is taking
place--exactly because this is the region of
the highest amount of gravitational pressures!

These are two self-excluding viewpoints:

One of them can be correct while the other
one is not. But both of them cannot be
correct at the same time: Either gravity exists
AND the center of the Sun (of every star) is
hollow. Or fusion DOES indeed take place
at the center of the stars because the center
of every star is its region of maximun
pressure--and therefore the effect of
gravity is "somehow" negated/voided
inside the stars. *

Which is it? SEE:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

* Of course, once The Great Thinkers
(who once thought the world was flat,
that the universe revolved around the
Earth, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy
explained the observable deficiencies
of gravity, that the entire universe
erupted from a magic bean, and that
it was constructed of vibrating strings
tuned into existence by unimaginably
tiny mathematicians)... once The Great
awhile I'm sure they will be able to
come up with any number of their usual
outrageously reality-denying/logic-
twisting solutions to this puzzle.

... when they could just visit:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com

And WHY have none of them even
(when it's so impertinently obvious)...?

Well, because we teach our so-called
Great Thinkers to learn by rote: "2times3
is33...2times4is104...4times5is55..."
and so on. And we not only require
that they do not challenge the validity
of what we are "teaching them" but
we actually demand that they accept it
all as The Indisputable Truth Eternal:

Can you imagine what would happen
if when the Great Professor is mumbling
"7times3is859..." to his class a student
were to get up and exclaim: "Professor,
you, sir, are an ignorant baboon: 7 X 3
is 21." Now: What grade do you believe
such a mere student would get? And
what student does not understand this?

By the way: The dramatization above is
an exaggeration for purposes of illustration
only. [This disclaimer is always required
when addressing former students of all
such universities, I'm sorry to say. SDR]

Ah! O well ...

******************************

On Oct 8, 6:56 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Virgil" wrote that
> > Newton proved a long time ago that the
> > gravitational attraction at its
> > center due to a body with radially symmetric
> > mass distribution is always zero.
>
> He did not prove (and it is not true) that
> gravitational field strength must
> decrease when moving closer to the the centre
> sphere. Whilst it is zero at the centre, it is
> arbitrarily large arbitrarily
> close to the centre (at least in Newtonian physics).

You're going to have to cite here.

Meanwhile, understand this: Newton
(or any star) burn the way they did/do/does:

It was not until around Einstein's time that
astrophysicists would at last able to put together
a cohesive theory of how the Sun is able to
ignite and sustain a self-perpetuating fusion
furnace--and all the data says that this is only
possible at the most central portion of the core:
there just isn't enough pressure outside it to
bring matter close enough together to produce
the required sustained fusion. Look it up.

The problem, of course, is that all the theories
of gravity produce NOT the greatest pressure
at the Sun's (and any other star's) core but a
great big hollow (or, at the least, a horrific
decrease of the gravitational "concentration
of matter" required to "push it/bring it together"
close enough for fusion to occur!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Newton never gave this a thought (it never
troubled him in the least that his theories of
gravity said that the Sun could not possibly
be working--turned ON--) for the simple
reason that he did not KNOW that the Sun
worked by means of nuclear FUSION and
that the only way nuclear fusion can be
produced inside the Sun is if the greatest
(not the least, but the highest) possible
pressures are concentrated at the Sun's core.

Had he known this, it would have blown
his mind--until he went on the Internet, of
course, and visited:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

learning there, from Mister Rodrian, the
correct way in which the universe works.

It would not have changed his theories of
motion/gravity. It would simply have made
them actual. Hoorah!

********************************

On Oct 8, 1:12 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:

> Newton proves a long time ago that the
> gravitational attraction at its
> center due to a body with radially symmetric
> mass distribution is always zero.
> Note that this is the case even though that
> mass distribution has mass at it center.

Newton "conveniently" leaves out the
matter of "pressures" at that center, just
as exactly what gravity might be was
something he knew was beyond his field
of knowledge:

If you propose that there is ANY pressure
at all at the Sun's center, then you will
need to explain where such pressure
comes from... considering that the "left
inner wall surface" [of my proposed
hollow at the Sun's center] is under MORE
gravitational pull from the left wall than
from the right wall (on the other side of
that hollow): There may be as much mass
in the right wall as in the left wall, yes,
but the mass of the left wall is obviously
closer to the "left inner wall surface."

You may stuff as much mass as you
like at the Sun's center--just explain
the mechanism which does the "stuffing."

For what's the use of merely noting one
has spotted a phenomenon--without also
attempting to explain it, when explaining
phenomena is the highest aim of science.

NOTE: Einstein's mind was of a clever
but lazy nature, thereby (the moronic
mathematical fudge factor so-called
"cosmological constant"). You have
to understand that relativity only
describes gravity in the way it is seen
to work; Einstein too never goes so far
as to even try to explain by what means
it might be working. And so it remains.
[The so-called "graviton" is merely a
theoretical proposal ... it is a physical
impossibility, but it's the only thing
they have--It is in Einstein's mind that
it is a physical impossibility because it
would require instantaneous action
at impossible distances, a problem
which itself drove Einstein to come up
with gravity as a strictly geometrical
description instead of a "real" (physical)
solution as might be provided by a
possible graviton. Like Newton, Einstein
recognized that explaining what gravity
actually was... was quite beyond his field
of knowledge.]

Today we can see the problems of lacking
a real/actual understanding of what gravity
actually is when everywhere we look gravity
seems to misbehave; The galaxies do not
behave as if they were perfectly observing
the laws of gravity (acording to which they
should all be flying apart). Not to mention
the problem of the Sun & the Ping-Pong ball.

*******************************

On Oct 7, 11:07 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
> > Once the ping-pong ball reaches the center
> > of the Sun it will achieve gravity equilibrium
> > and lie forever suspended there (at the exact
> > center of a great hollow).
>
> You must have assumed friction on your
> magic ping-pong ball.

Actually no: I imagined that, according to
Newton, once it reached the exact center
of the Sun it struck an identical ping-pong
ball coming at it with the same force (where
they both magically combined into a single
bigger ping-pong ball). I'm used to dealing
with these questions: When I told my little
nephew the story of Pinocchio he seemed
much more interested in knowing WHY the
mechanism for talking; How did he know
Pinocchio was going to be doing any talking!

> This next paragraph is without merit.

Gee, I wonder why--

> > According to the current laws of gravity.

> Nope.

Any particular reason why not?

>> In fact: It is at the center of every star that the
> > fusion that keeps a star "going" is taking
> > place--exactly because this is the region of
> > the highest amount of gravitational pressures!
>
> Because the temperature pressure and density
> are high enough for fusion reactions to take place.

You seem to know this. And yet it eludes you
that my post is all about challenging you to tell me
where that "high enough" pressure is coming from!

*************************************

On Oct 8, 12:12 am, johnreed wrote:

> The ping pong ball cannot be. And if it were
> the pressure of the mass it has penetrated
> will crush it not attract it.

It is a magic ping-pong ball. You missed that
didn't you!

> Have a good time. johnreed

Man! You have no idea!

********************************

On Oct 8, 2:41 am, "AndyW" wrote:

> ... were the heck did the big hollow
> come from???

There's always one in every crowd. This
is why I'd rather shoot myself in the foot
than teach!

***************************

On Oct 8, 3:11 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
SDR wrote:
>> [When it is at the Sun's surface,
>> the pull of the Sun's gravity on
>> the ping-pong ball will be at its
>> maximum.]
>> The instant the ping-pong ball plunges
>> past the surface of the Sun, the pull of
>> the Sun's gravity on the ping-pong ball
>> will begin to decrease.

> It is always true if the body has constant
> density, but the Sun doesn't.

Another Pinocchio explanation required.

You also missed the fact that the highest
gravitational pull "down" is NOT at the
surface of a sphere but a little bit up from
it (since at the surface part of that pull
will be defrayed from the sphere's sides).

*********************************

On Oct 7, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

> Define "surface" of a plasma density gradient.

Sure: Soon as yer notice a change in that density.

> Define "surface" of a plasma density gradient.

Sure: Soon as yer notice a change in that density.

> > [This is because as the ping-pong ball
> > travels closer and closer to the center
> > of the Sun: the mass pulling on the
> > ping-pong ball is decreasing, all the time
> > that there will be a growing amount of
> > Sun-mass behind it pulling back on it.]
>
> No it won't. This is because the density gradient
> is non-homogeneous.

Yes it is, if I so command it: This being a
thought experiment of mine, I can make of it
anything I wish. Even a giraffe. Live with it.

> Oh... I thought you said there was a fuckin'
> ping pong ball there...

ball slowly making its way there. Albeit, I
don't recall saying it started having sex once
it got there: You made that part up.

> Make up your non-existent mind.

I made it up: Now it exists! That was easy.

> ... any hollow magic ping pong ball will
> be crushed.

Not if my magic is strong enough. And
I have VERY nice thoughts--My magic is
therefore unstoppable! [Frankly, I don't
believe you've quite grasped the concept
of "magic."]

> ... magic ping pong balls
> don't even make it to the bottom
> of my kitchen sink, they FLOAT.

I take it you have spent a lot of time
plunging magic ping-pong balls into your
sink then: May I suggest a girl-friend.
She'll smack you up the side of yer head:
Fix'ya right up.

All right now, I knew this is where I'd
eventually end up: Listen up! Once there
was a toy maker named Geppetto ...

.

### John Santos

Oct 9, 2009, 12:06:01 AM10/9/09
to
In article <cd65d60c-2107-4f5e-b0b2-

No. This is where you go wrong. It would *not* stop.

All the while it was approaching the center of the Sun, it would
continue to accelerate, though the rate of acceleration would
decline to 0 at the center. However, it would continue to
possess all the velocity, momentum and kinetic energy it had
acquired while accelerating downward. As it reached the center,
it would have exactly enough velocity to reach the surface of
the Sun on the other side, plus whatever initial velocity it
had when it first reached the surface of the Sun. So it would
go flying off into space after emerging from the far side of
the Sun. (If it had originally fallen from a long distance,
such as interstellar space, it would eventually fly off again
and never return, since the velocity it would acquire falling
from interstellar space to the surface of the Sun would be
exactly the escape velocity *from* the surface of the sun.
It is easy to prove this by conservation of energy, as well
as by a detailed integration of the forces involved.

All your subsequent conclusions are incorrect, due to this
fundamental error.

--
John

### Nightcrawler

Oct 9, 2009, 12:37:32 AM10/9/09
to

"John Santos" <john....@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:MPG.2538809c3...@news.giganews.com...

> No. This is where you go wrong. It would *not* stop.
>
> All the while it was approaching the center of the Sun, it would
> continue to accelerate, though the rate of acceleration would
> decline to 0 at the center. However, it would continue to
> possess all the velocity, momentum and kinetic energy it had
> acquired while accelerating downward. As it reached the center,
> it would have exactly enough velocity to reach the surface of
> the Sun on the other side, plus whatever initial velocity it
> had when it first reached the surface of the Sun. So it would
> go flying off into space after emerging from the far side of
> the Sun. (If it had originally fallen from a long distance,
> such as interstellar space, it would eventually fly off again
> and never return, since the velocity it would acquire falling
> from interstellar space to the surface of the Sun would be
> exactly the escape velocity *from* the surface of the sun.
> It is easy to prove this by conservation of energy, as well
> as by a detailed integration of the forces involved.
>
> All your subsequent conclusions are incorrect, due to this
> fundamental error.

Of course, the OP did not state that the ping pong ball would
be immune to the density of the matter within the sun. So, the
ball would essentially just get buffeted around and most likely
would never even get close to the sun.

He's also in error in that he is presuming that the matter of the
sun will not press in and fill any voids that there are, and specifically
ignores the fact that the sun is a fusion reactor which needs a
constant supply of fuel to maintain the reaction. If there was a
"void", then the reaction would stop.

### John Santos

Oct 9, 2009, 1:47:57 AM10/9/09
to
In article <hameqk\$944\$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Dirty...@dirtcheap.net says...>
> "John Santos" <john....@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:MPG.2538809c3...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > No. This is where you go wrong. It would *not* stop.
> >
> > All the while it was approaching the center of the Sun, it would
> > continue to accelerate, though the rate of acceleration would
> > decline to 0 at the center. However, it would continue to
> > possess all the velocity, momentum and kinetic energy it had
> > acquired while accelerating downward. As it reached the center,
> > it would have exactly enough velocity to reach the surface of
> > the Sun on the other side, plus whatever initial velocity it
> > had when it first reached the surface of the Sun. So it would
> > go flying off into space after emerging from the far side of
> > the Sun. (If it had originally fallen from a long distance,
> > such as interstellar space, it would eventually fly off again
> > and never return, since the velocity it would acquire falling
> > from interstellar space to the surface of the Sun would be
> > exactly the escape velocity *from* the surface of the sun.
> > It is easy to prove this by conservation of energy, as well
> > as by a detailed integration of the forces involved.
> >
> > All your subsequent conclusions are incorrect, due to this
> > fundamental error.
>
> Of course, the OP did not state that the ping pong ball would
> be immune to the density of the matter within the sun. So, the

Yes, the poster I responded to said exactly that. He said the
ping pong ball was immune to all forces except gravity.

> ball would essentially just get buffeted around and most likely
> would never even get close to the sun.

"Buffeting" implies electromagnetic interactions.

>
> He's also in error in that he is presuming that the matter of the
> sun will not press in and fill any voids that there are, and specifically
> ignores the fact that the sun is a fusion reactor which needs a
> constant supply of fuel to maintain the reaction. If there was a
> "void", then the reaction would stop.
>

That, too... :-)

--
John

### johnbee

Oct 9, 2009, 2:07:09 PM10/9/09
to

"Aardvark" <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message

The usual crap from a non scientist. How far the ball sinks into the Sun
depends entirely upon how its density compares with that of the Sun.

### Nightcrawler

Oct 9, 2009, 3:25:23 PM10/9/09
to

"John Santos" <john....@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:MPG.2538989a5...@news.giganews.com...

> Yes, the poster I responded to said exactly that. He said the
> ping pong ball was immune to all forces except gravity.
>
>> ball would essentially just get buffeted around and most likely
>> would never even get close to the sun.
>
> "Buffeting" implies electromagnetic interactions.

> That, too... :-)

Correction noted, thusly making your explanation correct.

### Aardvark

Oct 10, 2009, 12:56:09 AM10/10/09
to
Obviously the ping-pong ball overwhelmed
the fragile minds of many of the posters
here (I only used it as strictly a focusing
device, but far far too many poor souls here
were simply dumbfounded by a ping-pong
ball inside the Sun and wrecked their brains
over how it was reacting in there). And
this in spite of my warning then that if they
didn't have a mind they ought not try to
work their way through my [sic.] "mind"
experiment. Forget the ping-pong ball guys:
I only chose it, instead of a golf ball, say,
because it (too) most ironically is hollow.

Superman and The Sun Experiment.

[A thought experiment--further simplified
now for those who just cannot get past the
ping-pong ball of the original experiment.]

NOTE: This is happening in an universe
in which gravity behaves as everybody
thinks it does (Newton, Einstein, & you):

And, why Superman?
Because not only is
Superman immune
to gravity, while still
able to feel it (we've
often seen him just
of his movies but
we've never seen him
floating away every
time he closes his
eyes)... but he is also
actually strengthened
by the rays of our
yellow Sun--Therefore
he actually becomes
most superest of all
INSIDE the Sun!

The problem, of course was: getting a
hold of him. Luckily I knew where Lois
Lane worked and gave her a ring, in
exchange for which she quickly agreed
to help me meet him (Superman--By
the way, his name is Super Man not
"Joey Superman" or other, it's just that
he's not uppity and never insists he be
called MISTER Man): I very quickly
explained the nature of my experiment
to Super Man, and he agreed to undertake
to travel to the center of the Sun for the
sake of those poor souls who would
never grasp the meaning/purpose of
this thought experiment because they
had been struck dumb by the only thing
they were able to see from that instant
onwards, namely the bouncing ping-
pong ball.

--Your announcer is Mr. Maxwell Smart:

BEGIN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Now: Imagine Superman approaching

the surface of the Sun.

As he does so he feels the pull of the

[When he is at the Sun's surface, or
pretty near it, Superman will feel the
pull of the Sun's gravity to be at its
maximum.]

The instant Superman plunges past the
surface of the Sun, he will feel the pull
of the Sun's gravity begin to decrease.
And it will continue to decrease as he
flies towards the Sun's center.

[This is because as Superman travels

closer and closer to the center of the

Sun: the amount of Sun mass pulling
on him is decreasing, all the time that

there will be a growing amount of Sun-

mass behind him pulling back on his
super body. We can set aside the Sun
mass to the sides, but we must still
subtract it from the "pulling" mass.]

Once Superman reaches the center of the
Sun he will feel either no gravity there (or
very little if any); and, if he so wishes, he
can lie there forever just floating about
impervious to all INCLUDING gravity (at
the exact center of a great hollow which
the laws of gravity tell us will be found
thereabouts because most of the matter
at the center of the Sun will have been
"pulled" away from its center [there may
remain a single hydrogen atom at the exact
gravitational center of this hollow... but
certainly during 5 billion years of "pulling"
most other atoms will have been pulled
aside because they could NOT also be at
the exact gravitational center unless they
were one system, of course. If there is a
perfect hollow it is because its "left inner
wall surface" is under MORE gravitational

pull from the left wall than from the right
wall (on the other side of that hollow):
There may be as much mass in the right

wall of The Great Hollow as in the left
wall of The Great Hollow, yes, but the
mass of the left wall of The Great Hollow

is obviously closer to the "left inner wall

surface" [to quote a certain Mr. Rodrian].

Or Superman can, as he did, leave the
inside of the Sun to report on his findings.
I am sure that many posters here would
have wanted me to ask Superman why he
wears his yellowing underwear on the
outside of his pants and neat-o stuff like
that--but he suddenly had to fly off, as
he saw that Lois, in reaching for an aspirin,
had swallowed a suicide pill she was
doing a story on instead and died. Now
Superman would have to travel back in
time a couple of hours to save her... yet
again! [Thank you Mister Smart.]

END THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Now, what are the implications of this
thought experiment? [Hint: They have
nothing whatever to do with Superman,
and, nor with Lois Lane either.]

1. From the size of the Sun brainiacs've
calculated that the only place in it
where there's enough gravitational
pressure to produce fusion is in a
relatively compact central core. Most
of the Sun is just plasma so loosely
flying about that it's hard for enough
matter to be brought close enough
for atoms & stuff like that to smash
together in order to sustain a fusion
chain-reaction.

2. The only method brainiacs know of
to produce the required pressures is
if gravity is trying to push all the
mass of the Sun into its very core.

3. And yet, as illustrated by Superman's
voyage, the very laws of gravity tell
us that once you start getting closer
and closer to such a central core, the
decrease rather than increase: a very
substantial mass of the Sun ought to
be moving away from its central core.

Now, most posters here will probably
wish to know if I asked Super Man for
his autograph or something like that.
But, not for those posters but, for those
persons with a mind, some very deeply

1. Is the Sun the result of gravity, as
we have heretofore understood gravity?

2. Obviously there exists the required
pressure at the Sun's core for fusion
to occur, or the Sun would not be ON.

3. How does that pressure come to be,
if the laws of gravity as we understand
them tell us it ought not exist there!

the existence of which is telling us
nature of how we understand reality
(apparently we are misunderstanding
it somewhere/somehow).

CONTINUANCE:

These are two self-excluding viewpoints:

One of them can be correct while the other
one is not. But both of them cannot be
correct at the same time: Either gravity exists
AND the center of the Sun (of every star) is
hollow. Or fusion DOES indeed take place
at the center of the stars because the center

of every star is its region of maximum

pressure--and therefore the effect of
gravity is "somehow" negated/voided
inside the stars. *

Which is it? SEE:

http://thesolutionisthis.com

Ah! O well ...

*******************************
IN THE FOLLOWING REPLIES TO POSTERS
I HAVE SOME HARMLESS FUN PLAYING
PING-PONG. HOPE YOU ENJOY THEM TOO:
*******************************

On Oct 9, 9:08 am, Frederick Williams wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
> > Once the ping-pong ball reaches the center
> > of the Sun it will achieve gravity equilibrium
> > and lie forever suspended there (at the exact
> > center of a great hollow).
>

> As I have already told you, the ping-pong ball
> will oscillate about the sun's centre.

Fred: The entire universe just changed
and you missed it because you were too busy
watching a ping-pong ball oscillating! [I
guess it's true, as the poet says: "A small
mind is always closer to the details."] Now
you will have to wait until somebody points
out to you that the universe has changed--
Is that your phone ringing? You may be

********************************

On Oct 8, 6:56 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Virgil" wrote that
> > Newton proved a long time ago that the
> > gravitational attraction at its
> > center due to a body with radially symmetric
> > mass distribution is always zero.
>
> He did not prove (and it is not true) that
> gravitational field strength must
> decrease when moving closer to the the centre
> sphere. Whilst it is zero at the centre, it is
> arbitrarily large arbitrarily
> close to the centre (at least in Newtonian physics).

>> You're going to have to cite here.

> Cite? That somebody didn't prove something, and
> its not true?

No. You're going to have to cite on how
my "magical ping-pong ball which is only
affected by gravity" behaves otherwise than
how I described it does in my post. Please do.

You, and other posters, obviously do not
believe in magic. And for your benefit I then
provided a way for my "magical ping-pong
ball which is only affected by gravity" to stop
at the center of the Sun's Great Hollow:

START QUOTE

Actually no: I imagined that, according to
Newton, once it reached the exact center
of the Sun it struck an identical ping-pong
ball coming at it with the same force (where
they both magically combined into a single
bigger ping-pong ball). I'm used to dealing
with these questions: When I told my little
nephew the story of Pinocchio he seemed
much more interested in knowing WHY the
mechanism for talking; How did he know
Pinocchio was going to be doing any talking!

END QUOTE

I hope this satisfies you. But if it doesn't
then please by all means do cite how it is
possible for my "magical ping-pong ball
which is only affected by gravity" to move
otherwise than however I say it does.

It will be interesting to hear it, I'm sure.

http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

********************************

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

**********************************

*******************************

Gee, I wonder why--

> Nope.

*************************************

*******************************
SEE: THIS IS WHY I HAD TO RECRUIT
SUPERMAN TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE
MAGIC PING-PONG BALL!

### Nightcrawler

Oct 10, 2009, 1:25:17 AM10/10/09
to

"Aardvark" <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message news:1a76ed04-bb50-4480...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Once you figure out how gravity works, and how a star is created,
get back to us with a real question.

Here's a hint: You are leaving out around half of the mass when
you think of your mind game, as goofy as it is.

### Sleepalot

Oct 11, 2009, 12:43:49 AM10/11/09
to
Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:

> The Ping-Pong Ball and The Sun.
>
> [A mind experiment--Therefore, if
> you do not have a mind, forget it.]
>
>Imagine a magical ping-pong ball
>which is only affected by gravity.

[snip]

>
> Conclusions from the above
> thought experiment:
>
>There is either a huge cavity at the center
>of the Sun,

[snip]

Imagine I mash a cannon ball into your skull.
Therefore you are dead, so STFU.

--
Sleepalot aa #1385

### Aardvark

Oct 13, 2009, 8:20:33 PM10/13/09
to
On Oct 11, 12:43 am, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Imagine I mash a cannon ball into your skull.
> Therefore you are dead, so STFU.

I am not dear. If I were
I could not continue typing.

You are in error.

SDR

### Sleepalot

Oct 16, 2009, 10:42:43 PM10/16/09
to
Aardvark <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote:

Ok, you can see the conclusion is wrong.
Can you see _why_ it's wrong?

--
Sleepalot aa #1385

### Aardvark

Oct 25, 2009, 11:06:11 PM10/25/09
to
On Oct 8, 11:37 pm, "Nightcrawler"
<Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> "John Santos" <john.san...@post.harvard.
edu> wrote in messagenews:
MPG.2538809c369d2948989686

@news.giganews.com...
>> No. This is where you go wrong.
>> It would *not* stop.
>> All the while it was approaching the center

>> of the Sun, it would
>> continue to accelerate, though the rate
>> of acceleration would
>> decline to 0 at the center. However,
>> it would continue to
>> possess all the velocity, momentum and
>> acquired while accelerating downward.
>> As it reached the center,
>> it would have exactly enough velocity to
>> reach the surface of
>> the Sun on the other side, plus whatever
>> initial velocity it
>> had when it first reached the surface

>> of the Sun. So it would
>> go flying off into space after emerging
>> from the far side of
>> the Sun. (If it had originally fallen
>> from a long distance,
>> such as interstellar space, it would
>> eventually fly off again
>> and never return, since the velocity
>> it would acquire falling
>> from interstellar space to the surface
>> of the Sun would be
>> exactly the escape velocity *from*
>> the surface of the sun.
>> It is easy to prove this by conservation
>> of energy, as well
>> as by a detailed integration
>> of the forces involved.
>> All your subsequent conclusions are
>> incorrect, due to this
>> fundamental error.

That misunderstanding is why I substituted
Superman for the ping-pong ball AND YET
so many monkeys [yes: here] continued to
misunderstand my simple little thought-
experiment that I despair of my fellow
monkeys ever evolving into thinking beings
any time in the near future. --SDR

> Of course, the OP did not state that
> the ping pong ball would
> be immune to the density of the matter
> within the sun. So, the

> ball would essentially just get buffeted
> around and most likely
> would never even get close to the sun.

This poster is obviously slowing crawling
his way towards becoming some sort of
hominid. He is probably capable of standing
upright and his legs are also probably
longer than his arms now (from his post).

> He's also in error in that he is
> presuming that the matter of the
> sun will not press in and fill any voids

Unfortunately he's thinking of the Sun
sphere more like a vessel in his hand
here on earth [instead of a free-floating
ball of gas/plasma out in space] wherein
the more water he pours into his vessel
the more it weighs (whereas the whole
entire Sun doesn't really weigh anything
whatever at all [pouring "more" into it
doesn't really make it "weigh" more]:
the Sun's "weights" are all relativistically
"a pound of stuff" only weighs a pound
on the surface of the earth... and if it
is out "in space" it weighs nothing whatever
at all--you know, much like the Sun itself).

This monkey, unlike the other poster, may
be able to stand upright, but he's still a
poor ole monkey, pure & simple...

> that there are, and specifically
> ignores the fact that the sun is a fusion
> reactor which needs a
> constant supply of fuel to maintain

> the reaction. If there was a

"if there were" ...

> "void", then the reaction would stop.

Yes! --That-- happens to be my point:

The ongoing fusion reaction proves that
in the Sun sphere Gravity could NOT be
working as it OUGHT TO BE working:

There is NO MECHANISM in a gas/plasma
ball (large enough for 1,300,000 Earths
to fit in it) for the outer shell mass to
transmit enough cumulative pressures
to the core ... since gravity is actually
declining the closer one gets to the core:

There are too many earth-masses around
every earth-mass at, say, 1/4 of the way
to the core pulling out towards the surface
for it to "press" all its mass towards the
core: In the end, once you start getting to
98/100th of the way to the core those earth-
masses are pressing more against core-
wards than core-wise [or, negative gravity
--at the core itself there should be no
gravity pressure at all]. Not being ONE
SOLID BALL the earth-masses in the Sun
have no way to add their gravitational
pressure towards the core. SINCE they
are obviously not falling towards the center
like Newton apples but existing in place. Or:

Imagine not an earth-mass but one given
atom "existing" inside the Sun sphere:
ANYWHERE YOU PLACE IT it will always
"feel" less and less "pull" towards the center
the closer to the center you put it. THE SUM
RESULT being:

The Sun is undergoing the pressure it's
undergoing at its core NOT because of
"gravitational pressures" but due to some
other mechanism--And that mechanism...
a velocity pressing towards center(s) ever
since the beginning of time, is explained
here:

"Give it up. Dude:
We are monkeys."

Oh, yeah. Sorry.

"Eat our feces, dude."

.

Oct 26, 2009, 2:51:45 AM10/26/09
to

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

So, how thick is the shell or gaseous outer wall of our sun?

~ BG

### Aardvark

Oct 26, 2009, 2:15:11 PM10/26/09
to
On Oct 26, 1:51 am, BradGuth

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

If the universe operated as described
by classical laws of gravity (e.g. via
the Sun would look like a big frozen
planet (along with every other star).
The "shell" might simply descend in
density to a least dense center, that's all.

Fortunately the universe doesn't look
inside the craniums of men to learn
how it's permitted to work (or not):

Eventually men LEARN the Earth isn't flat.
That the universe does not revolve around
their itty bitty planet. And that the reason
why gravitational anomalies suffuse the
universe everywhere they look is NOT
because "God likes lo create complex
puzzles with wandering planets, and
gravitational forces that don't act on the
parts of a mass just on the whole of it"
but because they have yet to fully grasp
(understand) exactly how perfectly simple
the workings of the universe really are.

You can learn a bit of it by traveling to:

http://physics.sdrodian.com

You will have to shut your mind to the bunk
more primitive monkeys than you have come
up with throughout theis ascent from more
primitive ages... to our howling day. But it
can be done (by most monkeys, if not all).

Good luck!

### sdm_sax

Oct 26, 2009, 7:08:52 PM10/26/09
to

Can't you figure out how to set your line length to something
sensible?

Oct 26, 2009, 8:29:46 PM10/26/09
to

"Firefox can't find the server at physics.sdrodian.com"

>
> You will have to shut your mind to the bunk
> more primitive monkeys than you have come
> up with throughout theis ascent from more
> primitive ages... to our howling day. But it
> can be done (by most monkeys, if not all).
>
> Good luck!
>
> S D Rodrianhttp://sdrodrian.comhttp://physics.sdrodrian.comhttp://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>

We monkeys need something more than luck.

~ BG

### Aardvark

Oct 27, 2009, 1:08:41 AM10/27/09
to

> "Firefox can't find the server at physics.sdrodian.com"

I never said I wasn't a monkey myself:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com/

SDR

### Frederick Williams

Oct 29, 2009, 7:40:02 AM10/29/09
to
Aardvark wrote:

> Once the ping-pong ball reaches the center
> of the Sun it will achieve gravity equilibrium
> and lie forever suspended there (at the exact
> center of a great hollow).

No it won't. It will oscillate back and forth.

--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.

### Aardvark

Oct 29, 2009, 8:22:11 AM10/29/09
to
On Oct 29, 6:40 am, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net>
wrote:

I refer you back to:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

BUT because they have yet to fully grasp

(understand) exactly how perfectly simple
the workings of the universe really are.

You can learn a bit of it by traveling to:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

You will have to shut your mind to the bunk
more primitive monkeys than you have come
up with throughout theis ascent from more
primitive ages... to our howling day. But it
can be done (by most monkeys, if not all).

Good luck!

S D Rodrian

### Aardvark

Oct 30, 2009, 3:45:44 AM10/30/09
to
On Oct 29, 7:59 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Aardvark" <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
>
> > If the universe operated as described
> > by classical laws of gravity (e.g. via
> > your mythical graviton) then probably
> > the Sun would look like a big frozen
> > planet (along with every other star).
> > The "shell" might simply descend in
> > density to a least dense center, that's all.
>
> The Sun is a fluid.
>
> On earth, more dense objects sink in fluids,
> and less dense objects float.
> But you believe that on the Sun, the highest
> density matter floats on top of
> less dense matter?

You're not thinking straight:

I do not claim that the universe works
in any way differently from how we
know it works.

I do know that if gravity were producing
"the effects of gravity," then the universe
could NOT work the way we know it works
(from the way gravity should work if it were
to work according to its own laws).

ERGO my scenario of a "less dense core"
for the Sun... if the universe worked according
to the laws of gavity.

The Sun does not actually have a less
dense core BECAUSE (see Newton's laws
of motion) since the beginning of the
universe everything in it has been
accelerating towards ITS CENTER(s).

NOTE: Not towards "a" center because
the sum total of its matter IS its center.
THERE is no other matter in the universe
than matter---I know this simplicity
is hard for monkeys to grasp. And I have
great sympathy for you, believe me.
But eventually you will all understand it;
just as you now understand that the math
that proved Ptolemy's earh-centered notion
didn't really prove anything except perhaps
the over-cleverness of us monkeys.

In affect, the universe is acting like
THE MOTHER OF ALL BLACK HOLES
with every "bit of matter in it" being
its "point of infinite density" (the very
obviously misnamed "singularity").

EVERYTHING about us is telling us
this is the case, but we are not yet
prepared (as a monkey society) to see it
(only I can see it--others may see it as
well, or perhaps blurrily, sooner or later).

THAT is why denser (the more mass, given
the same space) stuff "moves" toward center
with "greater weight" (more impetus) than
less massive matter (and why nearly mass-
less particles like the photon seen to shoot
about AT AN ALMOST INCREDIBLY CONSTANT
SPEED regardless of where in the universe
they are). And without knowing each other.

And why, the photon, after it slows down
while passing through a denser medium
suddenly re-speeds up after it hits a less
dense medium, and WITHOUT having to fire
any after-burners!

It's all explained from several different angles
at:

http://physics.sdrodrian.com

and in a plain/simple English language
which even a six year old can follow.

See if you can,

### Aardvark

Nov 4, 2009, 6:53:45 AM11/4/09
to
On Nov 1, 3:39 am, Tomm Carr
<TommC...@Gmail.com> wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> The Ping-Pong Ball and The Sun.
>
>> [When it is at the Sun's surface,
>> the pull of the Sun's gravity on
>> the ping-pong ball will be at its
>> maximum.]
>
>> The instant the ping-pong ball plunges
>> past the surface of the Sun, the pull of
>> the Sun's gravity on the ping-pong ball
>> will begin to decrease.
>
>> [This is because as the ping-pong ball
>> travels closer and closer to the center
>> of the Sun: the mass pulling on the
>> ping-pong ball is decreasing, all the time
>> that there will be a growing amount of
>> Sun-mass behind it pulling back on it.]
>
>> Once the ping-pong ball reaches the center
>> of the Sun it will achieve gravity equilibrium
>> and lie forever suspended there (at the exact
>> center of a great hollow).
>
>> Conclusions from the above
>> thought experiment:
>
> Your conclusions are flawed for
> a very simple reason.

Thank God! I hate it when my conclusions
are flawed because of very complex reasons.

> What you have done
> is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand which,
> like a good magician, gets us
> looking in one direction while the action
> is taking place in the other.

See: This is why there should be a law
against those TV programs that reveal how
the tricks of magicians like me are done.

> You get everyone looking only at gravity
> and missing the other forces at work.

That's in the other forces' work contract.

> What you say about gravity is true: it is
> greatest on the surface and
> will cancel out -- be effectively zero -- in
> the center. Pressure, otoh,
> will be least on the surface and greatest
> in the center.

You're thinking of a bowling ball there, friend:

[The Sun is not a bowling ball: If it were,
we'd know where the pressure was coming
from--But since the Sun is a ball of gas/plasma,
it should perfectly "describes" the impression
of gravity upon its matter ... exactly like the
magnetic fields of a magnet's poles "describe"
themselves on iron filings spread out on
a sheet of paper under which you move said
magnet. Do the experiment yourself. Remember:
There is NO WAY for one of the Sun's "filings"
(or: atomic particle) to "push" another anywhere:
They should all travel towards where they are
"pulled" by gravity. ERGO: If the Sun were
indeed being "shaped" by gravity, there would
be no/little pressure towards the core to carry out
any fusion reaction. That is a physical fact which
nothing in your philosophy can dispute. THERE
IS fusion going on at the Sun's core, otherwise
it'd be a big ole bowling ball.] Therefore, Tommy

Trust me: The Sun (and every other heavenly body)
is being shaped/worked by "something" other than

otherwise IT COULDN'T BE--Even Einstein knew
this, when he said that "God does not play dice."
("Physicists have suggested that the laws and
constants of physics are too good - as if the
universe were set up to favour life's evolution.
It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials
representing the major constants of physics. Each
of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of
a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-
twiddlings would yield a universe in which life
would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle
out within the first picosecond. Others would
contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and
helium. In yet others, matter would never condense
into stars (and you need stars in order to forge
the elements of chemistry and hence life). You
can estimate the very low odds against the six
knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned,
and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have
been at work" IF you do not understand that the
sequence is not one of six disparate/unrelated
knobs but one of one leading INEVITABLY to
the next. In other words: The explanation to
Existence is always 1,2,3,4,5,6 ... inevitably.

If any other sequece is proposed the proposal is
as wrong as proposing your nephew created the
universe: No proof of that can ever be right. And
regardless how elegant the math may be.

> How is that? Because the pressure is not
> the result of gravity acting
> directly on the ping-pong ball. It is the
> result of gravity acting on
> everything else.
> At the surface, and at all points under the
> surface until it gets to the
> center, gravity is pulling the ball towards
> the center. In fact, gravity
> is pulling all the hydrogen (yes, helium
> and other elements too -- but
> vastly more hydrogen) toward the center.
> Once at the center, gravity is
> no longer effecting the ping-pong ball,
> but it is still effecting the
> trillions of trillions of trillions of tons
> of hydrogen, all being
> pulled, and generating pressure, toward
> the center -- directly at the
> hapless ping-pong ball. This exerts, as
> could well be imagined, a good
> deal of pressure on said ping-pong ball.

Read the theory of solar system creation:
All your atoms are experiencing a swirling,
NOT a rush towards center (you know, like
the orbiting planets, which are just merely
agglomerations of atoms).

The pressure towards center can NOT be
the result of gravity for an universe of
reasons (no pun intended).

For the reason why everything is always
moving towards center, go thou read it at:

You know, when the Ptolemy System was
drawn up... it all fit together perfectly. The
math was mavelus! Except, of course, that
a few "stars" (planets, actually, like Venus)
would suddenly seem to come to a dead stop,
and then go back the way they'd come!!!

But that was just a few planets--Why scrap
a beautiful system like Ptolemy's just for a few
lousy planets that refused to obey its laws?

Well, because it told you the system was rotten.

Well the system of Gravity we have today to
explain the way the universe works doesn't
just have a few wandering planets, it has
scientists losing their sanity and proposing
science fiction solutions at almost EVERY turn:

Time-travel (Yes: they're now quite SERIOUSLY
blaming the failure at CERN on "the notion that
the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its
own future: A pair of otherwise distinguished
physicists have suggested that the hypothesized
Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce
with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature
that its creation would ripple backward through
time and stop the collider before it could make
one, like a time traveler who goes back in time
to kill his grandfather.")... and a myriad other
idiotic physical impossibilities like "dark energy."

And yet these idiots refuse to accept that their
extire system is rotten. Believe Einstein on this
one: The solution is not 1, 483, 43, 9, 1999, 2
but 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Inevitability is ALWAYS the correct solution.

> You can even perform a real-world experiment
> to observe this principle,
> using a real ping-pong ball and a swimming
> pool. At the surface, there
> is no pressure on the ball -- it floats there
> quite happily. But cup
> your hand over it and push it to the bottom
> of the deep end. By the time
> you get to the bottom of the pool, the ball
> should be thoroughly
> crushed. By gravity? No, the amount of
> gravity pulling on the ball will
> not have changed significantly from the top
> of the pool to the bottom.
> It was all that water on top of the ball
> that generated the pressure. --Tomm Catt

I already tried this experiment on the SUN
itself, and burnt my hand--I suggest you try
thought experiments (if you're crazy enough
they'll all work out).

### Aardvark

Nov 29, 2009, 8:08:59 PM11/29/09
to
On Nov 21, 12:29 am, "Angelo Campanella"
<a.campane...@att.net> wrote:
> Rather than a cavity, the region is
> one of zero gravity!

Sorry: The region (core) is one of the MOST/
THE HIGHEST pressure of all--My point, rather,
is that according to the laws of gravity THIS
SHOULD NOT BE. And yet it is. Did you miss this?

> The vacuum concept is the one that
> does not occur, per se. In its place is
> the Zero gravity field, which allows for
> interfereing, an intersting cauldron.

Well, if you can explain how the hydrogen
atoms are PRESSED closed enough together
to knock them into a fusion reaction... WITHOUT
any gravitational intervention: THAT would
certainly be something worth listening to!

> > Which is it? SEE:
>
> >http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>

> Very long winded. I never got to
> any core punch line.

This is the history of people who do
not know and probably will never know:
You simply are not interested enough to

I'll write it here: Gravity does not exist.
There is NO such thing as "gravity" (e.g.
gravitons, gravity waves, or anything like).
Now go read the complete solution at:

The universe (and stars, the Sun) does
not work by gravity--what has been
described as gravity). Nor is it the result
of a primordial infinitely dense atom
exploding (a Big Bang) where the 4 forces
were one or any such nonsense (hell,
even the people who propose this will
instantly turn around and tell you in the
very next breath that gravity is not really
a force: "It is a timespace fabric" upon
which marbles and balls roll around...
bending the fabric Einstein knitted to
replace the ether idea he himself had
torn to shreds (replaced, really, as you
can see). BECAUSE it is impossible to
defend the existence of the "force" of
gravity ceased to be a force immediately
after the Big Bang and became an ether.

And it all goes back to HOW the universe
came to be formed in the first place: In
its simplest sense, think of it as an area
in "the primordial voids" of lesser pressure
into which the surrounding greater pressures
rushed--And there was created our universe.

That "rush" of everything towards center(s)
is still going on (but ever faster and faster
because of the conservation of angular
momentum one sees when something/anything
spinning suddenly occupies a smaller area).
This is essentially what has been going on in
the universe all along... and eventually creates
a universe of hydrogen atoms which eventually
becomes a universe of black holes and then--?

Since the universe is rather ancient now and
it is ever-accelerating, its "speed" now must
be horrifically fast--Why don't we notice it?
We do, in the speed of light. But this hints
at an even profounder human condition: Our
lives, which appear to be so protracted, are
really unimaginably instantaneous (which
give us the sensation of a universe just
hanging around, chilling as it were, because
our every thoughts are so fleeting): Our
lives are a blink, we just don't see it.

Life, as we know it, can only exist in the
universe in transition from hydrogen atoms
to black holes. So take time to understand
things now, because there will never exist
understanding ever again.

### Nightcrawler

Nov 29, 2009, 8:50:47 PM11/29/09
to

"Aardvark" <a...@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message news:ac4ba011-ebc9-48e6...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Well, if you can explain how the hydrogen
> atoms are PRESSED closed enough together
> to knock them into a fusion reaction... WITHOUT
> any gravitational intervention: THAT would
> certainly be something worth listening to!

Still at this?

Stand in the center of 100,000 starving people and hold up a Big Mac. Everyone towards
the center will be pushing back, but they are outnumbered which will lead to you, and them,
getting crushed. So, yeah, that Mac's influence was pretty much equalized at the center, now,
wasn't it?

Nov 29, 2009, 9:02:59 PM11/29/09
to

I agree, there's more to the complex formation and logic of our known
universe than the extremely weak force of gravity.

Gravity seems more of a subsequent reaction rather than a primary
cause.

~ BG