mel jacobson on sun 1 may 11
dear nils.
i have a bubble level in my head.
it is automatic.
i was born with it...and i realize `you` don't
have that life changing dna.
i rarely need a tape measure...i just estimate.
and, am usually within an 1/8 of an inch.
the floor of my studio slants to the drain.
i told the guy...`if a marble does not roll to
the drain when this job is done...i will not pay
you a cent.` so. i have a small wedge on my
old skutt wheel, and it is close to level.
i will add a pix of my brent.
clayart page.
god, i am a lucky boy.
the most fussy ....get your kiln slab
level. can't build a house on a 12 degree slope.
from: minnetonka, mn
website: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/
clayart link: http://www.visi.com/~melpots/clayart.html
new book: http://www.21stcenturykilns.com
alternate: melpots7575@gmail.com
WJ Seidl on sun 1 may 11
Back when I was much younger, and a lot less well off financially
I lived in an apartment with my second wife. This ancient building was
warped
every which way, settling probably, but the rent was cheap. The only
way to keep a marble from
rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the floor=
.
In our bedroom, the bed was set to best fit the room, but that meant
that there was a slope from one side to the other.
Not much, an inch or so over 6 feet. We tried leveling it, but the shims
we would use always got dislodged.
Finally we gave up trying to level it. The bed sloped enough so that my
then wife would roll into me night after night.
She had the "upslope" side.
That's not a bad thing, trust me.
As to throwing on a wheel out of level:
Mel, you know as well as I do that any potter worth a damn can throw on
a tilted wheel.
It just takes skill, and a little finesse. "Almost" level is good
enough. The ancients didn't have bubble levels.
They did have uneven floors though...and lots of kids.
Fussy, fussy, fussy .
Wayne
On 5/1/2011 11:30 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
> can't build a house on a 12 degree slope.
WJ Seidl on sun 1 may 11
Randall:
For the sake of brevity, I wrote it that way.
Now, basic orienteering, not an anomaly...
If solely for the sake of argument, you have a room with walls facing
N,S,E,W
and you have a floor tipped toward a corner, say the NE corner,
when you put a marble in the center of the room, it will roll both north
and east...
two different directions.
In this particular apartment, the floor boards were so warped that the
marble would roll along a seam,
then roll over a board to the next seam, then along that seam, in a kind
of "zig zag" pattern.
It drove the cat crazy .
Best,
Wayne
On 5/1/2011 8:19 PM, Randall Moody wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, WJ Seidl > > wrote:
>
> The only
> way to keep a marble from
> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to
> the floor.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> That is one hell of a scientific anomaly. How can one marble roll in
> two different directions? :)
>
> I level my wheel because I can and I like it that way.
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
Randall Moody on sun 1 may 11
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, WJ Seidl wrote:
> The only
> way to keep a marble from
> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the
> floor.
>
> Wayne
>
>
That is one hell of a scientific anomaly. How can one marble roll in two
different directions? :)
I level my wheel because I can and I like it that way.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Larry Andre on mon 2 may 11
If you are standing smack dab on the south pole, your rotation speed would
be quite a bit slower than a person standing on the equator, what could the
consequences be, you could literally be encompassing all time zones at the
same time, so you could conceivably be celebrating yesterday, today and
tomorrow at the simultaneously.
-----Original Message-----
From: pdp1
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 5:23 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: nils/mel's wheel.
Hi Larry.
Well there's always 'Dramamine' ( nee: 2 -(diphenylmethoxy)-N &
8-chloro-1,3-dimethyl-7 H-purine-2,6dione )...but ya gotta figure, it in
it's Bottle, in the Medicine Cabinet, in the Bathroom, is transcribing all
( well, maybe not 'all' ) the same motions pretty much, as who-ever is
reaching for it is...but for the reaching, so...
So when ye get right down to it, what 'direction' is anything r-e-a-l-l-y
going???
Or is it even going in any actual direction at all?
How inconvenient!
But of course, Meanwhile, back-at-the-Ranch ( the Ranch is of cours also
transcribing all these same Motions, but as we move along with it ) we can
say, "By golly...that Marbled rolled due South!"
But, if one go South, and go as far South as one can, so one is standing on
the South Pole, one runs outta South then, and, everywhere one may look or
walk toward, as far as any Horizon, is 'North'. At that point, there is onl=
y
North, and, if one roll-a-Marble, the Marble will go 'North' no matter what
direction it takes.
Fun, huh!
Lol...
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Andre"
> I'm getting motion sickness just reading your post. L
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdp1
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:26 PM
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: nils/mel's wheel.
>
> It's a Quantum Psysics sorta thing.
>
> Or, an ambivalence sorta thing.
>
> Worse yet, when something goes in three directions at once...or no
> directions at once.
>
> Technically, as far as I recall anyway, the Marble, rolling across
> anyone's
> Floor, ( along with anyone watching it ) is describing an attenuated
> involute ( or is it convolute? ) and compound Spiral motion, as the Earth
> itself is rotating upon it's Axis, and, as the Earth itself is rotating
> around the Sun, and, as the Solar System itself is rotating, and, as our
> Galexy itself is rotating, and, as they all together, are headed more or
> less toward ( or enjoy a closeing speed anyway, with ) the Constellation
> 'Hercules', closing at 13,000 Miles-a-Second, or whatever it is.
>
> Gets messy, and fast, too...
pdp1 on mon 2 may 11
It's a Quantum Psysics sorta thing.
Or, an ambivalence sorta thing.
Worse yet, when something goes in three directions at once...or no
directions at once.
Technically, as far as I recall anyway, the Marble, rolling across anyone's
Floor, ( along with anyone watching it ) is describing an attenuated
involute ( or is it convolute? ) and compound Spiral motion, as the Earth
itself is rotating upon it's Axis, and, as the Earth itself is rotating
around the Sun, and, as the Solar System itself is rotating, and, as our
Galexy itself is rotating, and, as they all together, are headed more or
less toward ( or enjoy a closeing speed anyway, with ) the Constellation
'Hercules', closing at 13,000 Miles-a-Second, or whatever it is.
Gets messy, and fast, too...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, WJ Seidl wrote:
>
>> The only
>> way to keep a marble from
>> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the
>> floor.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
> That is one hell of a scientific anomaly. How can one marble roll in two
> different directions? :)
>
> I level my wheel because I can and I like it that way.
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
Larry Andre on mon 2 may 11
I'm getting motion sickness just reading your post. L
-----Original Message-----
From: pdp1
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: nils/mel's wheel.
It's a Quantum Psysics sorta thing.
Or, an ambivalence sorta thing.
Worse yet, when something goes in three directions at once...or no
directions at once.
Technically, as far as I recall anyway, the Marble, rolling across anyone's
Floor, ( along with anyone watching it ) is describing an attenuated
involute ( or is it convolute? ) and compound Spiral motion, as the Earth
itself is rotating upon it's Axis, and, as the Earth itself is rotating
around the Sun, and, as the Solar System itself is rotating, and, as our
Galexy itself is rotating, and, as they all together, are headed more or
less toward ( or enjoy a closeing speed anyway, with ) the Constellation
'Hercules', closing at 13,000 Miles-a-Second, or whatever it is.
Gets messy, and fast, too...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, WJ Seidl wrote:
>
>> The only
>> way to keep a marble from
>> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the
>> floor.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
> That is one hell of a scientific anomaly. How can one marble roll in two
> different directions? :)
>
> I level my wheel because I can and I like it that way.
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
Steve Mills on mon 2 may 11
I don't use a bubble level, I use a cup of water.=3D20
The oldest (& cheapest) "Level" known to man!
:-)
Steve M
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
www.mudslinger.me.uk
Sent from my Ipod touch
On 1 May 2011, at 23:47, WJ Seidl wrote:
> Back when I was much younger, and a lot less well off financially
> I lived in an apartment with my second wife. This ancient building was
> warped
> every which way, settling probably, but the rent was cheap. The only
> way to keep a marble from
> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the flo=
o=3D
r.
>=3D20
> In our bedroom, the bed was set to best fit the room, but that meant
> that there was a slope from one side to the other.
> Not much, an inch or so over 6 feet. We tried leveling it, but the shims
> we would use always got dislodged.
> Finally we gave up trying to level it. The bed sloped enough so that my
> then wife would roll into me night after night.
> She had the "upslope" side.
> That's not a bad thing, trust me.
>=3D20
> As to throwing on a wheel out of level:
> Mel, you know as well as I do that any potter worth a damn can throw on
> a tilted wheel.
> It just takes skill, and a little finesse. "Almost" level is good
> enough. The ancients didn't have bubble levels.
> They did have uneven floors though...and lots of kids.
>=3D20
> Fussy, fussy, fussy .
>=3D20
> Wayne
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> On 5/1/2011 11:30 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>> can't build a house on a 12 degree slope.
pdp1 on mon 2 may 11
Hi Larry.
Well there's always 'Dramamine' ( nee: 2 -(diphenylmethoxy)-N &
8-chloro-1,3-dimethyl-7 H-purine-2,6dione )...but ya gotta figure, it in
it's Bottle, in the Medicine Cabinet, in the Bathroom, is transcribing all
( well, maybe not 'all' ) the same motions pretty much, as who-ever is
reaching for it is...but for the reaching, so...
So when ye get right down to it, what 'direction' is anything r-e-a-l-l-y
going???
Or is it even going in any actual direction at all?
How inconvenient!
But of course, Meanwhile, back-at-the-Ranch ( the Ranch is of cours also
transcribing all these same Motions, but as we move along with it ) we can
say, "By golly...that Marbled rolled due South!"
But, if one go South, and go as far South as one can, so one is standing on
the South Pole, one runs outta South then, and, everywhere one may look or
walk toward, as far as any Horizon, is 'North'. At that point, there is onl=
y
North, and, if one roll-a-Marble, the Marble will go 'North' no matter what
direction it takes.
Fun, huh!
Lol...
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Andre"
> I'm getting motion sickness just reading your post. L
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdp1
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:26 PM
> To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: nils/mel's wheel.
>
> It's a Quantum Psysics sorta thing.
>
> Or, an ambivalence sorta thing.
>
> Worse yet, when something goes in three directions at once...or no
> directions at once.
>
> Technically, as far as I recall anyway, the Marble, rolling across
> anyone's
> Floor, ( along with anyone watching it ) is describing an attenuated
> involute ( or is it convolute? ) and compound Spiral motion, as the Earth
> itself is rotating upon it's Axis, and, as the Earth itself is rotating
> around the Sun, and, as the Solar System itself is rotating, and, as our
> Galexy itself is rotating, and, as they all together, are headed more or
> less toward ( or enjoy a closeing speed anyway, with ) the Constellation
> 'Hercules', closing at 13,000 Miles-a-Second, or whatever it is.
>
> Gets messy, and fast, too...
May Luk on mon 2 may 11
Steve;
That is the best I have heard for a low-budget and low-tech studio.
Thanks!
May
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Steve Mills
wrote:
> I don't use a bubble level, I use a cup of water.
> The oldest (& cheapest) "Level" known to man!
> :-)
> Steve M
>
> Steve Mills
> Bath
> UK
> www.mudslinger.me.uk
> Sent from my Ipod touch
>
> On 1 May 2011, at 23:47, WJ Seidl wrote:
>
>> Back when I was much younger, and a lot less well off financially
>> I lived in an apartment with my second wife. =3DA0This ancient building =
wa=3D
s
>> warped
>> every which way, settling probably, but the rent was cheap. =3DA0The onl=
y
>> way to keep a marble from
>> rolling in two different directions in any room was to glue it to the fl=
=3D
oor.
>>
>> In our bedroom, the bed was set to best fit the room, but that meant
>> that there was a slope from one side to the other.
>> Not much, an inch or so over 6 feet. We tried leveling it, but the shims
>> we would use always got dislodged.
>> Finally we gave up trying to level it. =3DA0The bed sloped enough so tha=
t =3D
my
>> then wife would roll into me night after night.
>> She had the "upslope" side.
>> That's not a bad thing, trust me.
>>
>> As to throwing on a wheel out of level:
>> Mel, you know as well as I do that any potter worth a damn can throw on
>> a tilted wheel.
>> It just takes skill, and a little finesse. "Almost" level is good
>> enough. =3DA0The ancients didn't have bubble levels.
>> They did have uneven floors though...and lots of kids.
>>
>> Fussy, fussy, fussy .
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/1/2011 11:30 AM, mel jacobson wrote:
>>> can't build a house on a 12 degree slope.
>
--=3D20
http://twitter.com/MayLuk
http://www.takemehomeware.com/
Bob Seele on tue 3 may 11
This thread is getting far out.
next someone will want to put a wheel on the space station.
alota
bs
On May 2, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Larry Andre wrote:
If you are standing smack dab on the south pole, your rotation speed
would
be quite a bit slower than a person standing on the equator,
There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.
Taylor Hendrix on tue 3 may 11
When I was working at NASA we did some checking on that. Problem was
that when the head astronaut started the wheel up to center the clay,
the spacecraft would go into gimbal lock every time. Very very
frustrating. Don't even get me started about the glaze kiln on the
space station!
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Bob Seele wrote:
> This thread is getting far out.
> next someone will want to put a wheel on the space station.
>
> alota
> bs...
James Freeman on tue 3 may 11
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Steve Mills
wrote:
I don't use a bubble level, I use a cup of water.
The oldest (& cheapest) "Level" known to man!
If you have an Android smartphone, there are free apps that allow it to
operate as a bubble level and a bulls-eye level. Pretty slick, and very
handy. I am sure they must have similar apps for the apple ipod phones too=
.
Being something of a luddite though (in the colloquial sense, not
necessarily the strict historical sense), I just sit cross legged on my
wheel head, focus on the moulding above a door or window, and set the wheel
to spinning. If the wheel is level, each wall's moulding will remain in th=
e
center of one's gaze, and if the wheel is fast enough, will form an almost
continuous line. If the mouldings seem to be going up and down, the wheel
is not level. Nothing could be simpler!
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
pdp1 on wed 4 may 11
----- Original Message -----
From:
> If you are standing smack dab on the south pole, your rotation speed woul=
d
> be quite a bit slower than a person standing on the equator, what could
> the consequences be, you could literally be encompassing all time zones a=
t
> the same time, so you could conceivably be celebrating yesterday, today
> and tomorrow at the simultaneously.
I believe so, yes...
I wish we had more places like that.
Actually, my place is somewhat like that...come to think of it.
One would also be slightly shorter I think, if standing on either of the
Poles...compared to if one were standing on the Equator.
And or, one could leap a little ( well, very little, but, a little none the
less ) higher if standing on the Equator, than if standing on one of the
Poles.
I think the Summer Olympics ( and Basketball, and maybe a lot else too )
ought to be held somewhere upon the Equator,
since it would enhance the various feats which rely on leaping and so on.
But then actually, I would really prefer though that any and all of the
Olympics ( and all the rest of professional sports ) be
held on one or the other Pole though, ideally, and, then left there.
Similarly, one were able be suspended in a clearing or void or gap or
whatever, located in the exact geometric Center of the Earth, I believe one
would experience weightlessness, as well as that one's accustomed notions o=
f
'direction' would require revision or review anyway. I am not sure how one'=
s
relation to the Earth's Axis rotation would work out under that condition,
but, it would be interesting to find out.
Some people of course have now and then thought that the Earth was hollow.
I have no opinion on that myself, but, it is interesting to wonder about,
and, to wonder if the Earth were always the same size it is now.
I used to brood on this when I was a kid - if it were hollow, and, had once
been greatly smaller in diameter, and, had
expanded, this would get along neatly with how the Continents appear to hav=
e
once fitted together, and, to have moved apart over time.
Some people think that the Moon is hollow, and, that it is an old,
artificial Satellite, set in place neatly by others, for reasons or uses of
their
own.
I myself have long felt it curious, or, even suspicous, that the Moon
happens to enjoy a period of Rotation upon it's Axis, which exactly permits
the same face to
be toward the Earth perpetually.
While Astronomers or others insist that this is a natural result of
gravitational forces acting to generate drag, and, thus to slow, and,
eventually cease a Planetary or
Orbiting Body's rotation, I found the assertion tepid, and, improbable.
I believe they proceed from what is observed, and then instead of
investigating cause more honestly, they merely say it is that way be-cause
it is that way, while wrapping it in a lot of jargon,
and then they get testy or huffy about it.
This kind of reaction never impresses me favorably, when seeking
explaination.
Are there other examples of Moon in our Solar System, where one face of the
Moon is always perfectly toward the Planet it orbits around?
I do not recall...
But, as for matters more directly - or more pragmatically - related to Mel'=
s
Wheel ~
I wonder how one would manage at Sea, having a Potter's Wheel set up aboard
a Ship?
I suppose, like any Shipboard things, one would get used to it after a
while! And be alright with it ( within reason anyway...)
Has anyone ever done that, that we know of?
Phil
L v
Kathy Forer on wed 4 may 11
Recently I came across this video animation by Neal Adams positing a growin=
g=3D
earth in a growing universe. The "conspiracy of silence" attitude isn't ap=
p=3D
ealing to me but the rest makes sense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DoJfBSc6e7QQ
Also check out http://www.journeyoftheuniverse.org
Amazing film chockfull of astronomy, geology, biology, development of langu=
a=3D
ge and art, mathematics and more. Collaboration by an evolutionary philosop=
h=3D
er and a professor of religions.=3D20
Kathy
kathyforer.com
On May 4, 2011, at 6:23 AM, pdp1 wrote:
> I used to brood on this when I was a kid - if it were hollow, and, had on=
c=3D
e
> been greatly smaller in diameter, and, had
> expanded, this would get along neatly with how the Continents appear to h=
a=3D
ve
> once fitted together, and, to have moved apart over time.
pdp1 on sat 7 may 11
Hi Kathy,
How nice...thank you!
Yes, the Narrator/Narration was not what one would hope for...but, the basi=
c
subject
matter in it's own right, was a joy to see represented and demonstrated in
the visuals.
Good find...and much appreciated.
I was not able to find much in the second link's available content though.
So...if the Earth were say, one half the diameter it is now, but,
solid...would Gravity be about the same at it's surfaces as, or different
from, a condition in which the Earth were about the same mass as ever, but,
were about two times larger in diameter, and, Hollow?
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Forer"
Recently I came across this video animation by Neal Adams positing a growin=
g
earth in a growing universe. The "conspiracy of silence" attitude isn't
appealing to me but the rest makes sense!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DoJfBSc6e7QQ
Also check out http://www.journeyoftheuniverse.org
Amazing film chockfull of astronomy, geology, biology, development of
language and art, mathematics and more. Collaboration by an evolutionary
philosopher and a professor of religions.
Kathy
kathyforer.com
WJ Seidl on sat 7 may 11
Phil:
For shame! You know better than that, a smart gentleman like yourself!
That's basic science.
Mass is mass, no matter the size. Assuming a vacuum, gravitational pull
of two bodies of equal mass will be the same.
Now if you're talking GRAVITY acting on two objects of differing size
but the same mass, that's something else again.
(In other words, a balloon having a mass of two hundred pounds and a
potter weighing two hundred pounds being tossed at the same time off the
top of a building; which will hit first...)
If in a vacuum, they should both hit at nearly the same time (perfect
vacuums being so hard to come by these days, it's hard to prove)
but in our atmosphere, the object with the most surface area will hit
slower than the other because of friction with the molecules of the air,
smog, birds, airplanes, suicidal lovers, anything that gets in the way
of the falling object....
I'll leave it to you to decide whether a 200 pound balloon or a 200
pound potter has more surface area. )
Best,
Wayne Seidl
On 5/7/2011 4:04 AM, pdp1 wrote:
>
> So...if the Earth were say, one half the diameter it is now, but,
> solid...would Gravity be about the same at it's surfaces as, or different
> from, a condition in which the Earth were about the same mass as ever,
> but,
> were about two times larger in diameter, and, Hollow?
>
>
>
> Phil
> L v
Kathy Forer on sat 7 may 11
Phil, the second link journeyoftheuniverse.org is only circumstantially rel=
a=3D
ted to the idea of an expanding earth. It shows a simulation of big bang to=
g=3D
alaxies to life on earth. Preview on site. Check events for local premiere.=
=3D20=3D
Kathy
On May 7, 2011, at 4:04 AM, pdp1 wrote:
> I was not able to find much in the second link's available content though=
.=3D
Dan Pfeiffer on sat 7 may 11
I think you should also consider the effect of local gravity on a level. if
you have a large mass, mountains or a large iron deposit nearby, this could
get you off a bit.
Dan & Laurel
James Freeman on sat 7 may 11
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:04 AM, pdp1 wrote:
So...if the Earth were say, one half the diameter it is now, but,
solid...would Gravity be about the same at it's surfaces as, or different
from, a condition in which the Earth were about the same mass as ever, but,
were about two times larger in diameter, and, Hollow?
Phil, Kathy, et alii...
Odd topic for clayart, but physics is always cool!
If you guys are talking about the expanding earth conjecture, then yes,
gravity is the fly in the ointment that spoils the entire hypothesis. If
the Earth were once half of it's current size, and since the mass would hav=
e
to have been the same (or else where would the extra material have come
from?), then the force of gravity exerted on creatures at the surface would
have been four times as great, which means that creatures as we know them
would have been pretty much flattened and suffocated under their own
weight. Imagine if you will, that your weight suddenly quadrupled.
The reason this must be so is because the force of gravity is a function of
the SQUARE of the distance from the center of mass to the object on the
surface (or the distance between the two interacting bodies). Specifically=
,
the force of gravity is equal to the mass of the first object (the Earth, i=
n
our case) times the mass of the second object (the dinosaur standing on the
surface of the Earth) times the Gravitational Constant (which remains, well=
,
constant!), all divided by the square of the distance between the two
objects:
Fg =3D G*M1*M2 / r^2
In our example, let's say the original, half-sized Earth had a radius of 1
unit. 1 squared is still 1, so the force of gravity exerted on our dinosau=
r
is the mass of the Earth times the mass of the dinosaur times the
Gravitational Constant, all divided by 1 squared, or 1. Let's call the mas=
s
of the Earth times the mass of the dinosaur times the Gravitational
Constant "GMM" for the sake of simplicity. The force of gravity on the
half-sized Earth is therefore GMM divided by 1, or GMM.
Let's now let the Earth expand to twice it's size, so it's radius in now 2
units. 2 squared is 4. Since the mass of the Earth and of our dinosaur
remain unchanged, as does the Gravitational Constant, the formula is now GM=
M
divided by 2 squared, or GMM divided by 4. Thus, the force of gravity
exerted on our dinosaur on our present Earth is 1/4 what it was on the
half-sized Earth.
Fun diversion. Later!
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
pdp1 on sun 8 may 11
Me'd say'd -=3D20
>>So...if the Earth were say, one half the diameter it is now, but,=3D20
>>solid...would Gravity be about the same at it's surfaces as, or =3D
different=3D20
>>from, a condition in which the Earth were about the same mass as ever, =
=3D
but,=3D20
>>were about two times larger in diameter, and, Hollow?=3D20
>From: WJ Seidl=3D20
>Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 4:48 AM
>Subject: Re: nils/mel's wheel.
>Phil:
>or shame! You know better than that, a smart gentleman like yourself! =3D
That's basic science.
=3D20
Hi Wayne,
I did not say I had no opinion about it...just thought it would be fun =3D
to leave it open and muse on it a little in a thinking aloud kind of =3D
way..
Lol...
Actually, what I had meant to say, was...'If the Earth were to have half =
=3D
the surface area it does now...'
But I goofed, and ended up saying half the diameter.
My central thought of course, was about a comparison of the Earth as =3D
imagined, in a condition, where the Continents were fitting together =3D
over the more or less entire Surface...vis-a-vie, as the Earth is now, =3D
where, the Continents have wide spaced between them, as the Video which =3D
Kathy had supplied, had shown.
Or, how the experience of Gravity would be, on the two respective Earth =3D
surfaces...
> Mass is mass, no matter the size.=3D20
It would seem so, yes...or, this has been the concensus anyway.
But the Gravtity associated to different size examples of same-mass =3D
objects, can vary...even if of course to no degreee worth mentioning =3D
when in normal Terrestrial conditions.
I do not have any ready way to guess the relationship though of equal =3D
masses of different sizes, to their respective Gravitational assigns.
I know all of that is some axiom or other, but, I am not there to work =3D
it out.
Too, in passing, I would say, anything good for the Imagination, and, =3D
the 'Soul', is going to be good for-the-Clay.
So, such side-bars now and then, for any so disposed, may be an =3D
ancillary nourish...
> Assuming a vacuum, gravitational pull of two bodies of equal mass =3D
will be the same.
I think it ( the force of Gravity ) is the same regardless of whether =3D
acting in or through a Vacuum or an Atmosphere.
Sectional area or density or both, of an object in motion in an =3D
Atmosphere, will occasion/encounter drag...which is a seperate =3D
consideration from that of Gravity.
> Now if you're talking GRAVITY acting on two objects of differing size =3D
but the same mass, that's something else again.
Atmospheric drag to or of the surface sections of bodies in motion was =3D
not part of my thought...
But Gravity as it would be registered on the surfaces of two same mass =3D
different diameter 'Earth' example Spheres, was...yes.
> (In other words, a balloon having a mass of two hundred pounds and a =3D
potter weighing=3D20
> two hundred pounds being tossed at the same time off the top of a =3D
building; which will hit first...)
Which ever one does not hit second? ( Sorry, could not resist...)
> If in a vacuum, they should both hit at nearly the same time (perfect =3D
vacuums being so hard to come by these days, it's hard to prove)
> but in our atmosphere, the object with the most surface area will hit =3D
slower than the other because of friction with the molecules of the air,
> smog, birds, airplanes, suicidal lovers, anything that gets in the way =
=3D
of the falling object....
Quite so...
> I'll leave it to you to decide whether a 200 pound balloon or a 200 =3D
pound potter has more surface area. )
I do not know what a two hundred pound Baloon would be for diameter...or =
=3D
if the Baloon were two hunded pounds, because it is filled with Water..? =
=3D
- Lol...
Or...
It would depend upon the individual...but, the Potter, even if weighing =3D
even less than 200 lbs, might just win if the Balloon were filled with =3D
Water in order to be 200 lbs - especially if we take into account the =3D
Potter's outer surface area of Arms and Legs and so on, and, moreso, =3D
their Respiratory System and it's vast folds of surface area compacted =3D
into a small space, and, their Digestive Systems also, as being =3D
technically an outside 'surface area' ( which of course, they both are =3D
)...even if appearing casually to be 'inside'.
>Best,
>Wayne Seidl
And believe me, my Math 'Hinges' are Rusty!!!
Lol...
What fun though, regardless...
Love,
Phil
Lv
pdp1 on sun 8 may 11
Hi James, Kathy, Wayne, all,
Below ( some ways below in fact )...and amid, but just a dab...
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:04 AM, pdp1 wrote:
>
> So...if the Earth were say, one half the diameter it is now, but,
> solid...would Gravity be about the same at it's surfaces as, or different
> from, a condition in which the Earth were about the same mass as ever,
> but,
> were about two times larger in diameter, and, Hollow?
>
>
>
>
> Phil, Kathy, et alii...
>
> Odd topic for clayart, but physics is always cool!
Actually, everything IS about 'Clay'...or Clay commenting about what
other-Clay is doing...always!
From the Book 'Cat's Cradle" -
God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, they sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and have a look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God!
Nobody but You could have done it, God! I certainly couldn't have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud
that didn't even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thankyou for the honour!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now. I can hardly wait...
To find out for certain what my wampeter was...
And who was in my karass...
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen.
> If you guys are talking about the expanding earth conjecture, then yes,
> gravity is the fly in the ointment that spoils the entire hypothesis. If
> the Earth were once half of it's current size, and since the mass would
> have
> to have been the same (or else where would the extra material have come
> from?), then the force of gravity exerted on creatures at the surface
> would
> have been four times as great, which means that creatures as we know them
> would have been pretty much flattened and suffocated under their own
> weight. Imagine if you will, that your weight suddenly quadrupled.
I had goofed up...and, had meant to say, "if the Earth were to have half th=
e
surfave area that it has now, and, be solid."
> The reason this must be so is because the force of gravity is a function
> of
> the SQUARE of the distance from the center of mass to the object on the
> surface (or the distance between the two interacting bodies).
> Specifically,
> the force of gravity is equal to the mass of the first object (the Earth,
> in
> our case) times the mass of the second object (the dinosaur standing on
> the
> surface of the Earth) times the Gravitational Constant (which remains,
> well,
> constant!), all divided by the square of the distance between the two
> objects:
>
> Fg =3D G*M1*M2 / r^2
>
> In our example, let's say the original, half-sized Earth had a radius of =
1
> unit. 1 squared is still 1, so the force of gravity exerted on our
> dinosaur
> is the mass of the Earth times the mass of the dinosaur times the
> Gravitational Constant, all divided by 1 squared, or 1. Let's call the
> mass
> of the Earth times the mass of the dinosaur times the Gravitational
> Constant "GMM" for the sake of simplicity. The force of gravity on the
> half-sized Earth is therefore GMM divided by 1, or GMM.
Well, just for sake of wondering...if the Earth had become a lot larger tha=
n
it once was, if retaining about the same mass, and, hence, became less
dense...how would we know?
> Let's now let the Earth expand to twice it's size, so it's radius in now =
2
> units. 2 squared is 4. Since the mass of the Earth and of our dinosaur
> remain unchanged, as does the Gravitational Constant, the formula is now
> GMM
> divided by 2 squared, or GMM divided by 4. Thus, the force of gravity
> exerted on our dinosaur on our present Earth is 1/4 what it was on the
> half-sized Earth.
Of course 'Dinosaur' means 'Terrible Lizard'.
Even though very few of the Creatures associated with the periods in which
the term 'Dinosaur' is used, were 'Lizards' of any sort.
But, there is no qusiton in my mind, that a Brontosaurus, or a Tyranosaurus
Rex, would have found 2 X our present Gravity, to be oppressive and likely,
a mood dampener.
I myself would...for that matter.
> Fun diversion. Later!
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
Yes...good stuff, and fun and interesting..!
Thanks for the demonstrations!
Maybe run them again with the new Model?
( I would but my 'Math Brain' is about like Chernobyl anymore...it had
burned bright for a while, long ago, then, well, sort of encountered
mis-hap...and was then cruely surrounded by a sort of hasty Crysalis or
other, whch though itself decaying, liberates nothing but fumes...)
Love!
Phil
Lv
James Freeman on mon 9 may 11
A couple of points, Phil, and anyone else still paying attention to this
thread...
You asked:
"Well, just for sake of wondering...if the Earth had become a lot larger
than
it once was, if retaining about the same mass, and, hence, became less
dense...how would we know?"
The fossil record would give us clues that an engineer could extrapolate
from. For example, in order to bear all of the extra weight, skeletons
would have been much thicker and stronger relative to bone length, yet they
seem to be proportionally quite similar to what we see today. Similarly,
plant life such as trees would have been different than what we have today,
yet we know that such things were much the same as now. Several species of
"dinosaur" trees still survive unchanged from those bygone days, such as th=
e
dawn redwood and the gingko biloba.
You said:
"Of course 'Dinosaur' means 'Terrible Lizard'. Even though very few of the
Creatures associated with the periods in which
the term 'Dinosaur' is used, were 'Lizards' of any sort."
Yup, very true. Recent evidence points to T-Rex actually being a
chicken-like creature, and not a lizard at all. Seems to me that all of th=
e
so-called dinosaurs, or at least most of them, are still here, just much
smaller than before. Following whatever sort of cataclysm occurred, food
would become scarce, thus favoring the smaller species, and the smaller
members of each species, and natural selection would lead us to where we ar=
e
today. Ever read "The Beak of the Finch", by Johnathan Weiner? Same
pattern, but in microcosm.
Loved the mud poem. Years ago I had the opportunity to spend a bit of time
in Prague, in the Czech Republic (incredibly beautiful city, an absolutely
wonderful destination, if you ever have the opportunity). Traveled to the
old Jewish section of town on a sort of Kafka pilgrimage. It was there,
while visiting the Old Cemetery (a fascinating place, tombstone upon
tombstone, as the remains were buried one atop the other as space ran out),
that I first heard the story of the Golem, a man made of clay, and animated
via special markings and incantations, to defend the Jewish ghetto from
attack. The Golem's body is supposed to still exist, hidden in the attic o=
f
the Old New Synagogue, to be reanimated if the need arises.
As an aside, the Golem is the source of our current word "robot". It was
first used in the novel R.U.R. by the Czech author Karel Capek, which was
loosely based on the Golem story. "Robot" is derived from "robata", which
is the Czech word for hard, drudge work.
As a further aside, and bringing us back on topic, Adam, our "first man",
was a Golem, but since he was made by God, he was an infinitely more precis=
e
and well-crafted example than those created by mere holy men (Golems create=
d
by holy men must be "art", rather than craft!). His anglicized name, Adam,
is a shortened form of the Hebrew work "adamah", which means clay.
"Adamah", when reversed, spells "Hamada". Cue Twilight Zone music...
Doo-doo-doo-doooo, doo-doo-doo-dooooo...
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should
not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Kathy Forer on mon 9 may 11
On May 8, 2011, at 10:14 PM, pdp1 wrote:
> Of course 'Dinosaur' means 'Terrible Lizard'.
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Even though very few of the Creatures associated with the periods in =3D
which
> the term 'Dinosaur' is used, were 'Lizards' of any sort.
>=3D20
>=3D20
> But, there is no qusiton in my mind, that a Brontosaurus, or a =3D
Tyranosaurus
> Rex, would have found 2 X our present Gravity, to be oppressive and =3D
likely,
> a mood dampener.
I'd have thought dinosaurs could have taken it. But what about Platypi? =3D
Perhaps that's how they got their flattened bills.
Age has seemed to me a measure of gravity. I'd never noticed gravity =3D
before I was thirty, then inexorably it started exerting more pressure =3D
on me as my years grow shorter.=3D20
If the earth were smaller, days would be shorter. Time might be slowed =3D
down just as it is with children. And if time was slowed down, perhaps =3D
the effect of gravity might be different.=3D20
Is the constant for gravity the only factor in its effect?=3D20
Wouldn't Fg =3D3D G*M1*M2 / r^2 need to be Fg =3D3D (G*M1*M2 / r^2)*t
t =3D3D x/365 (x =3D3D days per year) to get its actual force?
I love the Kurt Vonnegut quote!
Kathy
www.kforer.com=3D
| |
|
