Cancelled

  • 3 Replies
  • 707 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 73
  • S{isypi%Fd}g~$4@665<>7%Zdsksglltsiv
    • View Profile
Cancelled
« on: 08/07/2015 23:01:26 »
-




« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 17:03:09 by LB7 »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4912
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of energy
« Reply #1 on: 08/07/2015 23:52:00 »
That's why you shouldn't use discretised simulations of smoothly analytic equations. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of energy
« Reply #2 on: 09/07/2015 13:40:05 »
Why would you have dipole gravity? There isn't a charge associated with gravity. You have neutral particles that are equally affected by gravity as the charged ones. You are more likely to make progress in relating kinetic energy to gravitation than you are with charge. At least kinetic energy has a relationship to the wave nature of mass. Charge would in no way explain time dilation as it is invariant in all inertial frames. If you look at your diagrams with respect to angular momentum that is something entirely different and much more valid.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: The sum of energy
« Reply #3 on: 09/07/2015 13:47:59 »
Here is something simple to start you off.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/AngularMo.html
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.