Robittybob1

That to me is amazing for Swansont did not read my post #89 first but we were both writing up on similar ideas. I did not know what Swanson was posting in #90 but we ended up talking about the same "new territory" topic.

I am sure we are going down totally new territory here, something nevertheless has been a possibility for a long time. As you say "If say, you took a kg of lead from Earth and dropped it off on the moon at the same temperature I would have assumed it was the same mass, 1 kg, (but say warmed up to a higher temperature, then over 1 kg, which I am sure is correct)" this is the usual way of thinking. But how about "If say, you took a kg of lead from Earth and dropped it off on the moon at the same temperature I would have assumed it was the same mass plus some additional mass (???) (not more molecules but just more energy per molecule), 1 kg + ???, (but say warmed up to a higher temperature, then over 1 kg +???, could this be correct?) I started a thread on conservation of energy in Relativity (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93590-conservation-of-energy-in-gr-split-from-universal-laws/ ) and found that ideas like this seemed to be what is lacking. That was why I did not post in that thread other than the OP in #4 (since the thread was split off another it technically wasn't myself who started it but it was from an idea in the first 3 posts.) Swansont can direct us how we operate without having to go across two threads in an area of science which seems speculative. We need some sort of immunity to discuss this step by step and openly. Do you feel that there is a connection between what we are discussing here under RB law and conservation of energy in GR? I think that is where we are at.

Thanks, so I wonder what J.C.MacSwell is thinking.

There aren't many fossils to tell how the process went. Nothing wrong with that scenario. When I'm finished maybe I'll summarise what the YT was about.

Both the bats and the night flying insects would benefit from the absence of birds at night. But there was the problem of locating the insects in the dark. That as we know was via echolocation but that isn't just a learned skill but one genetically engineered into their DNA I presume. They would need a larynx capable of making the high frequency clicks and large ears to pick up the source of the echo and the brain to make the mental map from the echos, the wings to change direction in flight etc etc ... I have tried echolocation myself and you can pick up large objects nearby. That is a learned skill. I am watching a documentary on evolution of flight "Evolution of Flight and Echolocation in Bats" (I'm not finished yet)

I saw a documentary on bats and predatory birds knew when the bats were leaving their caves and had a feast. There would definitely be an evolutionary impact from predation, for the ones capable of finding food at night would have an advantage. Bats are rare in NZ so I don't have any personal observations on their behaviour. Sorry my knowledge was based on the documentary. They keep out of the way so they don't get preyed upon not just to avoid in flight collisions.

I have been following it intently especially if they were to mention how long the merging binary BHs had been orbiting each other, (it was said they had likely been orbiting for a billion years). Also the finding about the 3 solar masses of energy (but that amount was just in the last 0.3 seconds). According to the GE equations throughout that billion year orbital decay they would have been radiating energy and falling in toward each other. OK the situation gets very serious in the final moments and that is why it was able to be detected over 1.3 billion light years away. Now do you accept that the binary BHs were losing mass from the gravitational radiation (G-rad) from the moment they became a binary system orbiting each other? (That is a billion plus years ago) All the time the BHs may have been accumulating mass as BHs do but that is a separate issue. I have bolded the question just so you all know the question I have been wanting answered. For if the answer is yes there doesn't seem to be allowance for this mass loss in the equations on G-rad. It would be rather a simple process to convert the energy loss into mass and continually subtract that amount of mass and use the reduced mass of each star/BH into the orbital period equations. It isn't so easy to predict the BHs as their mass would be growing due to their nature of taking in mass but the binary stars aren't thought of accumulating mass like that.

So was it said in jest? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93797-relativity-is-wrong/#entry909201 Unless a post has a definite reference how do we know what was tl:dr? I have the feeling now the A4 length science paper is tl:dr. Thanks for the explanation Daecon.

It feels like new territory to me, I've never seen this sort of thing ever been discussed before. I really want the discussion to go away from a discussion of the Moon but what happens when energy is lost as per gravitational radiation (GE, Gravitational Energy). Is there a mass loss in this situation? For if there was there was no formula that accounted for this changing mass, but that might be what is required. You say it is unnecessary detail but in the binary decaying orbit the KE is going up, so we will have to convert mass to KE and GE but the KE does not contribute to the mass any longer. Is that right? That is really interesting when you think about it.

It seems that "the KE is reduced, the higher the orbit the slower the Moon needs to travel, so it appears the KE is converted to PE and that in turn increases its mass". I've never seen it written like that before, but it seems possible. Any agreement or is this wrong?

What does that mean in English please?

It is a bit of a stretch to say the 11 dimensions of the M Theory are in anyway relate to the Tree of Life. Which of the names relate to the dimensions of space and time if you think they are related?

I'll let Swansont speak for himself but from an energy point of view the Moon gains orbital energy but a lot less energy than what is lost from the Earth (from friction from the tidal movements) and slowing of the rotation rate, so there is a net loss to the system from the process of tidal acceleration AFAIK. (My opinion was based on the article in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Angular_momentum_and_energy

. .Interesting perspective. How does the fidelity of replication enzymes become subject to selection? I could see a situation immediately after a mass extinction event and the resources start to stabilise again that a poor fidelity is what is required to maximise the genetic variability, yet once species are established it would be not the best to have so many oddities occurring in the population. But how does that selection actually operate? I think I just about get what you mean but maybe you can explain it better.

OK so when the reverse happens is it a mass loss? Is a decaying orbit is associated with a mass loss? Now it could be argued that any mass the Moon gained the Earth lost so the system is still the same, but in the case of decaying orbits of the binary stars radiating gravitational energy it is not an exchange anymore but a loss to the universe. Then would you say that the binary stars (as exemplified by the Hulse Taylor Binary system) are losing mass as their orbits decay?

I think you mean its mass has increased. OK, if I understood you correctly, when the Moon is tidally accelerated away from the Earth is its mass being increased for the same reason?

OK I saw it being discussed on a YT where they asked does 2 * 1kg blocks weigh more if they are side by side on the scale or if they are stacked on top of each other? They are not moving. So they are not confounded by relativistic mass. Did the one on top have energy added, so does it have more mass? I would hazard a guess that since the top mass is at a greater distance from the Earth's center of gravity that it actually weighs less (as measured by scales) even though it has greater mass (inertial) or it could be balanced (the two effects cancel out) and hence weigh the same. I regret not taking more notice of the answer they gave and I have not attempted to work it out mathematically, but just trying to work through the logic at the moment. But what do you say is the answer please?

I am sure flying animals would have made a great feast for predators too. Bats evolved more of a nocturnal lifestyle to keep out of the way of birds who are much more efficient flyers than the primordial bats were. Of course you can't grow wings by wishing for them, but those with the vestiges of wings must have at least used them to advantage. The ancestor would have tried to fly even before achieving flight, the action was said to give them greater speed (I've read that years ago). You might not see that point and it is just one that was stimulated by your flying mollusc image.

So basically you agreed with me. For in the second part I took out freewill and just let the physics of the situation direct the path. And due to the complexity of that it becomes unpredictable. One thing that did make me think is your idea of no flying molluscs. Well definitely none spring to mind unless you call a mollusc being dropped from a height by seagull as being an example. I would imagine some shellfish have evolved some sort of strategy to overcome the impact of the landing. I am only guessing about that for it was such a novel idea, a flying mollusc. Flying would be quite a negative feature generally, for a mollusc that attempted to fly would become the next meal for some predator. Does there need to be some conscious involvement here, like I imagine the ancestor of the bat attempted to fly before they evolved flight, and would a mollusc have enough mental power to attempt much else other than escape by closing their defenses and getting out of sight? That is an interesting aspect really and one that might show how evolution is directed (from hindsight at least). Come to think of it there are molluscs that fly through the water, scollops.

I'm studying all aspects of science, and the one person on the forum who matches my level of thought, is CharonY, and in #8 she asked a deep question, and I gave my answer, and I would have liked her to tell me if that was the right answer. For it covered how I think evolution is directed there are the environmental physical aspects, but once you have predators in the equation survival has to do with their choice as well. As far as the words in the OP "perfect wing", what is that meant to imply? I was wondering if they were looking at that from an aerodynamics POV. I have never had one of those red glazed chicken wings yet someone considered them "perfect". They could be right, I don't know. I understood that pic to be a lighthearted diversion. No problems.

I was thinking that at the moment of the lift being finished it has finished moving within that frame, so it is like lifting a mass in a gravitational field 1 meter at the end of that meter the force gone into the lift has all be converted to potential energy and no kinetic energy remains. On Earth that is like lifting an object onto a table, or stacking 2 cubes on top of each other. To have the G field present in a frame, what sort of frame are we talking about then, is that an accelerating frame? When you say "translational kinetic energy" what you do you mean? Google definition of "translational kinetic energy" is "An object that has motion - whether it is vertical or horizontal motion - has kinetic energy. There are many forms of kinetic energy - vibrational (the energy due to vibrational motion), rotational (the energy due to rotational motion), and translational (the energy due to motion from one location to another)." So it had motion temporarily but that slowed down as it reach the required height. Does that make sense?

Is that just dependent on when it is weighed? You can't weight them at any distance but you can calculate their mass by acceleration i.e. you are finding their inertial mass. If the parts are weighed have their mass calculated when they are touching they have no GPE (they are at the least value of GPE in fact a negative value) that would less than when they are at an infinite distance apart (zero GPE but then also the maximal GPE value). If you had their mass calculated they would have more inertial mass, therefore if the inertial masses were summed they would be greatest then when they are infinitely separated. But when they were together touching their combined inertial mass would be less than the sum of its parts (the original parts before they came together). It was quite hard to build up to that position but I got there. Does that make any sense? When they orbit "the final mass of the bound system will be less than the sum of the two masses; the difference is the negative potential energy due to gravity" but some of the energy will be in the form of KE.

But this is different than what you were talking about before when you said "keep in mind that the mass of the system is greater than the sum of the masses of its constituent parts."

I've never seen them that colour. Who makes them like that?

No because there could be the influence of free will on the part of the thrower and other sea creatures in the ocean. Was it ever bumped by a fish or a seal? Was it pecked at by a seagull? If there was no free will one might expect the physics of the journey will determine where it ends up but no one could ever model the whole situation. How could that deserve a negative 2. What was the right answer then instead of just giving my attempt a bad score please? What is a perfect wing?