E=mc2 questions?

Hmm! You are not isolating the water , you are adding more mass by adding the containment, mass of the container that is also being effected by gravity.
I have passed the idea on, I am not a scientist, I do not know all the in's and outs. I can say with an almost certainty that gravity attracts the energy of mass, whether the mass loses energy to gravity or not I could not say with a certainty, I have passed the idea on now so that is it for me with this one, bin it if you like no problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you asked for specific information about the experimental setup. Did you forget?

You proposed an effect caused by gravity and I wanted to help you set up the experiment so that only that effect matters, so we can see what it does. Now it just seems to me like you are dodging your own claim.

No. Do you really not understand what a thermos is for?

No, that's not acceptable. You've made grandiose claims about how your ideas would work: You can't back out now by saying you are unable to analyze your own idea...unless, of course, you want to back out completely and admit you have no idea what you are talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do know what I am talking about and I do know my own idea and what the details are involved, I thank you for trying to help me with this idea, but I think it is un-testable because the equilibrium of the water is already at an equilibrium to gravity , the force of gravity imposes a newton weight on the object, the newton weight is equal to the attractive force of the energy contained in the mass of an object.
I understand objects of mass are attracted to each other, I understand that the two objects are made of atoms, I understand the only energy within the mass is of an atomic nature.
I have always said a ''troll'' needs a scientist and vice versus, the scientist has the knowledge and the wording, and the ''troll'' has creative ability and can think outside the box. <not to stereotype scientists of cause>.

The observation experiment I would use is simply water turning into ice or simply frost. Ice can be seen building up on aeroplane windows, I believe the mass of the aeroplane is the reason for this, extracting Kinetic energy from the water, turning it into ice.
I also believe that the caesium atom shows you exactly what I am talking about, you can clearly observe in the Keating experiment that there is an energy restriction and vice versus by gravity influence on the Caesium atom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. If the effect were real, it would be easily testable. Kids do experiments like this in middle school.

 

This is far from a kids experiment, it would be really complex because all mass on earth is already at an equilibrium to gravity force and always subjective to this force, it certainly would not be easy to test. What I do know is that if we created a vacuum in a surrounding environment of 0C,and poured water onto the vacuum floor, I am pretty sure we will observe the water freezing and becoming ice. We would all agree that the water lost energy somewhere....
I also got this idea from the moving stones in a desert somewhere, and ice was forming under the stones, but that did not explain what force moved the stones, I believe these stones have some properties that may in some way make them a bit buoyant at times, but please do not take much notice of this, just a crazy thought, or the ice acted like a gravity barrier to the stones.

I will have a think, have a doodle on bitmap, and see if I can think up an experiment to test the idea.

 

Thinking about the stones, the stones are a thermal barrier to any water underneath the stones, so the water can not gain energy so freezes to energy loss.<just a thought.>

Question - does water still evaporate in a vacuum?

or to rephrase the question does water evaporate in a vacuum if the vacuum is surrounded by zero heat?

I have googled a cold vacuum, will this have the ability to test the idea?

will the pressure still cause evaporation loss if we remove the energy of the surrounding volume of space to the vacuum?

 

I have had a doodle and so far have this -also accounted for is the Kinetic loss of an object in motion to friction and gravity that eventually brings an object to a stop. I also presume the water vapour has a rising velocity.

 

This is below the threshold of what I would consider a thought.

Oh for gods sake, are you kidding me!

Zero heat - just lovely...

You are a lost ball in high weeds. You seem to have zero (an absolute vacuum) knowledge about the most fundemental aspects of science. Unbelievable...

If you were to suddenly expose a glass of water to the vaccum of space there would be an explosion as the water flashed to steam.

If you slowly exposed the water to space the water would freeze and then sublimate.

You do have a lot of ideas that nobody has thought of, but these ideas are on par with what I would expect my cat to come up with.

 

So if nobody has thought about my ideas, how do you know there is nothing in my ideas? The evidence of Kinetic energy loss and Kinetic energy gain by gravity means, is experimentally proven in such things has roller coasters.

Example - A ball on an inclined plane by the force of gravity will roll down the incline gaining Kinetic energy and momentum, when the incline at the end of it's distance becomes a horizontal plane with an acting force of Fn=o to the ball, the Kinetic energy gained and momentum is transferred into a horizontal velocity until the Kinetic energy and momentum is lost to friction and gravity.
The external acting force on the mass opposed to the mass of the ball being gravity, has explained in Newton's laws of motion, an external force needed to change velocity.

A person who makes jumps by various methods, will explain that to gain distance they have to gain air , this removes the friction from the ground but does not remove the Kinetic energy gained by incline being lost too gravity, the velocity in the air time will decrease by loss of kinetic energy to gravity effectively bringing the jumper back down to Earth.
If the Kinetic energy was not lost then the jumper would continue in air and make orbit of the earth.

P.s I do understand there is air resistance also involved.

 

You are talking about the conversion of Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy and KE to PE. Any high school student who didn't sleep through science class knows that. That is different than the gibberish you have been talking about.

 

The KE and the PE I see to be apart of the truths in showing that gravity is the attractive force of the energy in mass, and atomic based. It is trying to add some evidence into my gibberish, force process you already understand, the KE loss of an object in motion on Earth is always eventually lost to gravity , that is why we do not have perpetual motion, friction is caused by gravity, the force of gravity pulling the objects surface against the grounds surface incurring a pressure between the two surfaces, eventually the object in motion loses it's Kinetic gain to gravity, showing us all that gravity is the effect of energies being attracted by energies.
You can also see a reverse of this when you superheat metals making them expand, expanding is movement of molecules opposed to gravity.
Think it insane all you want I have tried give up the thread once.

 

Are you a sock-puppet of Motor Daddy?

 

Because they are similar to the ideas that someone with no science background education has. They are the equivalent to "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" or "the summer is warmer so the Earth must be closer to the Sun in the summer." They indicate that the person hasn't yet had the education to formulate defensible theories.

Kinetic energy is not "lost to gravity" when moving across a horizontal plane. Also in your example there are two kinds of kinetic energy involved; you have only described one of them.

Someone standing still on the ground experiences no forces from friction; they only experience normal force. When they jump they will initially experience air friction, decaying to zero as gravity brings them to a stop at the top of their trajectory.

They actually quite quickly regain kinetic energy during their descent.

 

I don't agree that no one has thought of these issues before. The misunderstandings TC has are extremely common amongst people when first exposed to physics and, naturally, were real issues for scientists, that were figured out hundreds of years ago when science was new. Aristotle held many similar misunderstandings, for example. Misunderstanding how energy and gravity relate in particular is an issue I see at least monthly.

What is a bit unusual here is for someone to not have cleared up such basic misunderstandings before leaving high school.

And unfortunately breathless, delusions of grandeur are actually more common as the knowledge level gets lower.

 

He left high school at a very young age, well before any science courses.

 

You are right. Primary school children think of things like this and abandon these silly ideas when they learn a little science in jr or sr highschool.

 

Why has this thread nearly made it to 40 pages 0o'

 

No, that is silly. What would be this 'energy' you speak of?

That is too bad, because you are just adding more gibberish.

That is demonstrably false.

We do not have perpetual motion because no process is 100% efficient.

This is still wrong.

So you do not think there is friction in the ISS?

The expansion of a material that is heated (superheating is not necessary) is not in opposition to gravity. This is just more buffoonery on your part.

Talk you not good. I you not understand bad talky-talk.

 

Morbid curiosity. How low can we go.....

 

Because there's no mods willing to say this is crap and move it to the cesspool and shut it down.