sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter

 Subject: Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter Lester Zick Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:53:45 -0700 sci.astro, sci.math, sci.physics, sci.skeptic
 ```On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:00:00 -0600, Virgil <[email protected]/* */> wrote: >In article <[email protected]/* */>, > Lester Zick <[email protected]/* */> wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:18:31 -0600, Virgil <[email protected]/* */> wrote: >> >> >In article <[email protected]/* */>, >> > Lester Zick <[email protected]/* */> wrote: >> > >> >> On 14 Sep 2006 18:47:35 -0700, [email protected]/* */ wrote: >> >> >> >> >yeah, prove that geometrically using calculus or >> >> >just algebra . . . >> >> >> >> Where m1 is aggregate gravitationally attractive mass >> >> in a disk of uniform thickness and density in which the >> >> amount of gravitationally attractive matter ~ area=rrpi >> >> times unform thickness d: >> >> >> >> As a function of radius r the aggregate force of gravitational >> >> attraction will be: >> >> >> >> F=Gm1m2/rr=Gm1(rrpi)m2/rr=Gm1(pi)m2 and >> >> >> >> dF/dr=0 and gravitationally attractive force is constant as a function >> >> of radius r: hence tangential velocity of all m2's will remain >> >> constant as a function of radius r. >> >> >> >> QED. >> >> >> >> ~v~~ >> > >> >Zick's derivation above presumes the the gravitational attraction on a >> >unit mass due to a uniform thin ring of mass at a point in the plane of >> >that ring and inside the ring is zero. >> > >> >And it presumes that at a point in the plane of the ring but outside the >> >ring the force is equal to that exerted by an an equal mass >> >concentrated at the center of the ring. >> > >> >Both these assumptions are false. >> > >> >Perhaps Zick is being mislead by Newton's result for a thin spherical >> >bubble of mass, for which similar arguments are true. >> >> I think it more likely that Zick is being mislead by charasteristics >> of inverse square gravitation. > >Then Zick should note that the gravitational attraction at a point on >its circumference due to a mass evenly spread over a circular disc is >not equal to that of the same mass concentrated at the center of the >disc. Remarkable, professor. I reach my conclusion that gravitationally attractive force over a circular disk of uniform density is not a function of radius through tedious calculation and you reach your miscellaneous conclusion apropos of nothing in particular through what exactly, the trivium of truth and tedium of divine inspiration? >So that Zick's analysis is faulty. And which of my equations is faulty pray tell? ~v~~ ```
 Current Thread Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, (continued) Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, George Dishman Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, George Dishman Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Steve Willner Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Bruce Scott TOK Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick <= Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Lester Zick Re: Physicists Howl at Dark Matter, Virgil