Gravity never zero

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Ivan, Dec 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    If you want to pretend you wrote it yourself, and didn't cut and paste, you should get rid of the footnote.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    wellwisher, I assume the quote was from wiki, since the formula seems to have been. It would help to note the source of a quote and generally a link to it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I left it there, so I would not be accused of cheating. If youread Wiki you will realize there is more one definition of entropy.

    Your definition was elementary and limited. It did not provide you solid enough ground, to act like an expert who can discount others. There are other boneheads that have also been doing this and the staff is not doing its research but letting the boneheads act.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    No loss of mass. Like any fuel, for example petrol in your car.

    thermonuclear reactions
     
  8. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but any loss (release) of enegy even in a chemical reaction (eg petrol for your car), will result in the loss of mass.
    And I don't mean wear and tear either.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    What a load of crap.
     
  10. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Disappointing!

    Watch the link and explain to me the loss of mass. combustion: chemical equations

    Laws of Chemistry
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, any mass lost during a chemical reaction would be equivalent to the radiated heat during the process, assuming the process is capable of containing all, by products of the process. Under most conditions the mass involved in that heat loss is far below our measurable threshold.

    We cannot prove it. However, I do believe there has been some verification of the loss of mass during the normal decay of radioactive material. Assuming that at least a portion of that mass was from radiating infrared radiation, any process that results in radiating heat should logically also result in some loss of mass.

    Does that radiated energy at some time contribute to an increase in mass elsewhere? It is likely to the extent that one can be sure that the EM radiation at some time is absorbed somewhere else. As we have no truely closed systems to work with, it would seem likely that ultimately not all radiated heat is re-absorbed. Some portion may radiate away through the universe indefinitely. And thus the initial total mass must be diminished by an amount equal the lost EM radiation.
     
  12. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    OnlyMe, can you give a link, where mass loss is revealed as you stand for?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,193
    weelwisher:

    No, that's wrong.

    General relativity is a model of spacetime in general - gravity or no gravity. In general relativity "gravity equals zero" is equivalent to saying "flat spacetime". GR still applies.

    Non sequitur.

    Pressure of what? What are you talking about?
     
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I think there was a hint of it when if I work out the weight of a Carbon atom and the weight of a Oxygen molecule and compare it to the weight of a Carbon dioxide atom would they be exactly equal?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Definition: Law which states energy cannot be created or destroyed, but may be changed from one form to another.
    So if it lost energy it is also a mass loss, but if the whole reaction is contained there is conservation of mass since it is an enclosed system.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  15. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, within thermonuclear reactions I include normal radioactive decay, which may include neutron radiation and EM radiation under normal conditions and a variety of broken atomic parts in a bomb. The only aspect that involves a loss of mass if you account for ejected particles as conserved mass, is the EM radiation. For that the easiest reference is the first, I know of on record.

    DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?, Einstein's 1905 paper that introduced the equation E = mc^2 (though in that paper he used "L" in place of "E". E was later used in the formula to standardize terminology.)

    The paper essentially says that when an electron in an atom moves between energy states it emits or absorbs a photon and that in the process the atom loses or gains mass, equal to the energy of the photon divided by c^2.

    Photons extend in wavelength far above and below the visible light spectrum we associate with light. At least a portion of the heat radiated away from any body is in the form of heat in the EM spectrum.

    If you accept the equation E = mc^2 and Eistein's paper introducing it as valid, then when any process involving mass or an object, radiates heats in the EM spectrum it must also lose mass. Which in classical terms, weights and measures, is insignificant, but cannot be ignored.

    While chemical reactions do not involve the loss of particles in the same way that a nuclear decay might, they do involve heat radiated at least partially in the EM spectrum and so, by the same logic must involve some transfer of mass from one atom to another, and a loss of mass where that EM radiation fails to be re-absorbed by another atom.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Yep, with the correction "Carbon dioxide molecules".
    Also, the weight of two Carbon atom and the weight of a Oxygen molecule compared to the weight of two Carbon monoxide molecule are exactly equal.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yes, for example potential energy turns into kinetic energy.
    Or reversible chemical reaction where energy is needed.
    Always must be considered an enclosed system !
    Otherwise laws of conservation of mass and energy are not valid !
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    .

    Emil, Robbitybob1.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Have you considered the case where particles/anti-particles with 'mass' (electron and positron for example) mutually annihilate and produce only GAMMA e-m radiation?

    There ALL the 'mass' (matter form) has converted to 'massless' (E-M radiation form).

    For more background on 'Gamma Decay', look up....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_decay


    Hope this helps your discussion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers.

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  18. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
  19. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Hi RealityCheck,
    Yep, in this case I considered the particles as a wave.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    :cheers:
     
  20. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    OK. But I make no comment on the 'wave' aspect, mate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I only meant my post/link to regard the question whether E-M radiation (ie photons) contribute to 'mass' (and vice versa when the photons 'depart') when the photons enter into the 'massive' context (in this case the electron-positron pair context). That's all I meant to comment on.

    As to the further question of whether particles of 'mass' are also 'waves' or not, I will leave it to the present discussion-in-train participants on that question to consider further from their respective perspectives/knowledge and known science, as the case may be.

    Cheers and good luck and good thinking, Emil, everyone!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  21. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    RealityCheck,

    You have nothing to do with particles. They are part of a model.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers.
     
  22. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I'll let Only Me answer you but if heat is required to reverse the reaction they are the ones where the resultants are heavier in my opinion.
     
  23. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Yes, mate, I understand your stance on that aspect. Naturally, even a HULA HOOP has a 'wave effect' when thrown through a 'waterfall'. In that illustrative context, the leading-edge of the 'hoop' passes through first and affects the waterfall 'surface', followed in due course by the 'hoop' trailing-edge which cuts through in its turn.

    So in that scenario, the hula-hoop has a 'wavelength equal to its diameter? Nevertheless, we KNOW that the hula-hoop is a massive structure or 'massive particle' with defined leading and trailing 'edges' and contours etc etc. 'mass/matter/energy' properties.

    It depends on the context of the 'WHOLE interaction' (rather than just ONLY leading OR trailing edge interaction separated by measurement/distance interactive factors).

    The whole picture may be 'parsed' by either the observer or the detector as being a 'double wave' OR as a 'whole wave' having spatially far-separated components/effects which may or may not be included in any one 'instantaneous' event/measurement etc.

    Cheers and keep the thinking coming! Goodnight!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page