> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:09:35 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:36:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 6, 10:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:

> >> >> >If it were purely via the extremely weak force of gravity pulling
> >> >> >everything down to a white dwarf or even that of a neutron core, then
> >> >> >why not much sooner rather then later?

> >> >> >Isn't the Newtonian pull on elements such as hot hydrogen and even
> >> >> >hotter helium rather pathetic?

> >> >> The force equation is thought to be the same for all matter.
> >> >> I wonder if it really is though.

> >> >Seems the more electrons and positrons per atom, or the more
> >> >paramagnetic/diamagnetic a given element is, that we have other strong
> >> >forces binding such molecules together, than is caused or contributed
> >> >by the extremely weak force of gravity.

> >> >> Does gravity act on the mass tied up in 'bonding energy'?

> >> >That's another good question.  Seems the extremely weak force of
> >> >gravity just sort of comes along for the ride whenever there's a given
> >> >amount of mass, though contributing relatively little.  Since pure
> >> >energy is nearly massless, perhaps gravity is at best insignificant.

> >> When you think about it, the equation G = Mm/r^2 might never have been
> >> accurately checked. Orbit radii are independent of m, as you know....so how
> >> accurately do we know G?

> >> I could ask the same question about inertial mass. Does it include mass due to
> >> bonding energy? Maybe feathers don't fall at the same rate as uranium after
> >> all....

> >> I'm not saying it doesn't...just wondering if it has been thoroughly checked.

> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

> >>        Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

> >There should be an increase in acceleration as due to that extremely
> >weak force of gravity.  Therefore a given identical volume of uranium
> >as opposed to a hydrogen filled balloon should not fall or join up
> >with another given control mass at the exact same velocity.

> >Once again, the science habitat/platform as easily situated within
> >Selene L1 would have nailed this and many other kinds of science as of
> >decades ago, as well as easier to have accomplished than any one of
> >those Apollo missions.

> > ~ BG

> Yes. This could indeed be tested on the moon.

> There are several posibilities.
> In any atom, we know that at least some of its mass is associated with 'binding
> energy'. We don't actually know whether or not ALL mass is a consequence of
> binding energy in some form. In other words, does 'pure mass' exist at all?

> Another question asks if gravity fields act equally on both types of mass if
> such exist. Also, does 'binding mass' contribute to inertial mass?

> Dropping two dissimilar objects from a high tower on the moon would at least
> tell us something.