Robittybob1

Very interesting concept of orbiting inside the photon sphere for we often think of things orbiting the BH right up to the event horizon. Well I did anyway. Can we go back to the simplest of situations please. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93568-robittybobs-law-orbital-issue/page-3#entry908792 When we lift a mass on Earth are we increasing its mass according to Einstein's E= mc^2 equation? Now if you work out how much additional mass that is it can be appreciated it isn't any significant mass change when a 1 kg mass is lifted 1 meter in Earth's gravitational field. I'm not really asking whether it can be measured but whether it actually occurs. What does the forum say? On another forum site it said: I think that is the exact same idea I'm exploring. Can anyone see the problem with that? Nothing like that is written up in Wikipedia on Gravitational PE.

Would you care to explain that a little more or give me a link to explore this idea (even a relevant YT will do, some lecture from a University would be good)? What is the search term for the situation you are describing please?

Thank you Janus for those equations and explanations. I'll will have to go back and see if the orbital parameters of the Hulse Taylor binary fit with those equations. It has been several years ago and a stroke (of a sort) intervened, but previously I was always told the reason I could not get the periods, the masses and the distances to work for that binary was due to relativity. But I take it you are absolutely certain in all those equations M1 and M2 are not changing with the gradual loss of orbital energy. In a documentary on the discovery of the merging BH they said they expected those BHs to have been orbiting each other for more than a billion years, so during that billion years they were losing gravitational energy but no loss of mass, yet there was 3 solar masses lost at the end due to ??? but only at the end, and in your words "the 3 solar mass conversion didn't occur until the moment of merger". Is that "moment of merger" a time period or just an instant? And what was that mass loss due to in that time period/instant then?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/bats.htm

So are you implying McPherson is wrong (based on the average) by about 80 years? It is probably better to get an early wake up call rather than one too late. As long as this wake-up call doesn't precipitate inertia which I sensed McPherson was saying in the beginning, like preaching "do nothing for there is nothing that can save us". But let's not be lulled into thinking everything is going to be OK till 2100. I actually wished we were discussing climate change and what could be done years ago (personal perspective).

Within that link was a very interesting lecture That science can't all be untrue. .Particularly the first half. It gets a bit too political in the second half.

The process seems to start off with the particulates. When the planes were grounded and there was less particulates in the air for the water to crystalize on, and consequently there was an increase in temperature. I think we have all learned how the process works, but let's move on please.

I beg to differ for if a mini ice age intervenes it will look like McPherson fails again but it is just delayed.

I think a person can have doubts on the truth of the climate change issue without it needing to be called an "equivocation"! That seems a bit harsh. Do you deny climate change? Even if in the meantime we have a milder sun for 40 years and a mini ice age intervenes when that comes to an end the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will once again determine how hot it gets. Maybe we will be lucky and have extra time to take remedial actions. ..

So if there are two binary stars orbiting at a high rate giving off gravitational radiation and you say that is associated with mass loss, please hazard a guess or do you have any knowledge of what that really means back on the star itself? I have always likened PE as a mass gain, but references to that or other people mentioning such like are very very rare. Have you ever seen a reference to increased gravitational potential energy being associated with mass gain? I have only ever seen it written down once in 60 years. It seems such a difficult thing to measure, but it seems to follow on from Einstein's work of E=mc^2, if you have to add energy to lift an object its mass should increase. But I have never seen this being discussed recently except for when these two BHs merged last year and 3 solar masses of pure energy were released as gravitational energy. Now I don't think of that as single atoms being destroyed in some unknown fashion, for what known process reduces mass to pure energy except like antimatter-matter interactions, so what is actually happening? For the same process is involved with the RB law where PE is split into energy loss and kinetic energy, so does that too involve a mass change? This is such an unusual topic, I just hope we can resolve it.

We started off with McPherson's ideas but it soon lead to the study of the permafrost and the dissolution of the methane hydrates. Once I had seen several reports on these and how rapidly these are changing one would have to consider how right McPherson could be. In the meantime we should attempt to correct the factors, we have not just given up as McPherson seems to have done.

I didn't want to stump the discussion. I am thinking about preparing a bunker to survive the runaway greenhouse temperatures. Gosh there would have to be some benefit in that for a few years latter the whole world would be mine! Food for thought. I wonder if it would be possible to survive the initial extinction period. I'll live on algae if I have to, so I'd better find some edible varieties. I'll also have to check how high the sea levels will get once Greenland ice sheet melts. Maybe this place is not elevated enough.

Wikipedia gives a definition of microstate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_(statistical_mechanics)is that how this word is being used here? Define microstate please?

Seems rather an important null hypothesis. What does that last sentence actually mean? "...in physical systems there is a unimaginably large space of possible microstates" Would you care to explain that please?

"One reason is all or most ET are killed before they become space faring. Natural disasters can kill them, or they can kill themselves." They are the possible solutions to the paradox not the paradox itself. Any technology that will enable us to really go interstellar is (likely in my opinion) to be rather dangerous to test on Earth.

I believe you have applied the The Fermi paradox incorrectly. Where did you get that idea from? From some of the solutions that might be an outcome.

OK so you are not just using algae as a way of sequestering carbon but as fuel (oils extracted) and the waste as a fertilizer. As long as the nutrients are recycled maybe the process could be made to work. I'm exploring the idea behind the use of algae. I don't know enough about it. What does McPherson think of the use of algae to solve the impending crisis? I can't remember him mentioning it. McPherson doesn't advocate any solution as he thinks "we are ****ed".

I agree. There are several versions to that trick. Like you can be asked to go over your theory again, or read a very complicated paper even when it will not provide an answer, and as you say just be asked some difficult question and they expect citations along with your answer. There aren't many other science topics being discussed at present. I've stopped with the pointless analysis as I said I would.

But I'm sure no one wants that sort of behaviour rife on the Science Forum.

We would have to be careful not to induce some other limiting factor eg like running out of phosphate (for I'm sure the algae aren't just going to grow on nothing, they will need nutrients.) I'll have to look into it further, but with biochar at least the nutrients are put back into a cultivated area. I was not convinced that all the hype over biochar was backed by evidence either (I looked into a couple of years ago, so there maybe some new results to consider). It would be really disastrous to damage our agricultural land if biochar wasn't the right stuff to use.

Posts or more rightly threads of the wild guess status could be started in the trash can couldn't they? I have found you can have a good old discussion from the trash can if you feel that way. The forum is protected for I have a feeling (based on past experience) that items in the trash can't be viewed by unregistered readers and they aren't searchable via Google.

Not so much for would any parameters of a rocket or satellite be affected by this movement of the focus? It is not particularly important to know this but it could ultimately be involved with orbiting binaries giving off gravitational radiation. Would each star or black hole lose equal amounts of orbital energy so that the "focus" (I'm assuming the focus is the barycenter) never shifted? I'll have to go back to my calculations on the Hulse-Taylor binary to see whether I considered gravitational radiation as a mass loss. If it was a mass loss would both stars lose the mass at the same proportional rate so the barycenter stays in the same place? I was definitely using the RB law. I have a feeling if I took mass reduction into account my results could have been different. Am I wrong to think of gravitational radiation as being associated with a mass loss? It could be more like Theia whacking into the Earth and the orbit of the Earth becoming an ellipse but because the mass of the Earth increased from that moment on the Sun Earth barycenter (focus) would have shifted toward the Earth a little.

Could you detail what you experienced as miracles and answers to prayer and what you put them down to today?

I hadn't realised the problem was as big as it is. The amount of carbon locked up in the methane hydrates dwarfs the amount in fossil fuels (crude oil etc). So even if it was possible to capture and burn it to CO2 plus H2O that will only be a small advantage for the CO2 is a greenhouse gas as well. So does that mean we should burn the methane and pump the CO2 deep into the ground. Even that sounds problematic for the reservoir could leak or rupture causing a massive cloud of CO2. Biochar was a possibility but that too is too slow. Instead of allowing enormous forest fires to occur burn the trash in a biochar oven, and bury the biochar in the land. Prove whether it is beneficial for agriculture or not. If not just bury it in huge pits below the ground surface. McPherson seemed to think biochar would be ineffective to deal with the problem, but it could be a start in the right direction.

We might just get a rushed decision under those circumstances!