Zodiac Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 High energy state volumes such as the Sun transfers the volumes high energy to lower energy state volumes in transition . A volume of absolute space would effectively have E=0 and as a consequence of this , the maximum potential to gain energy as in accordance with thermodynamics , ''cold things reach room temperature'' . It is my belief that high energy is attracted to lower energy states , the force I assume is a gravitational transition ? >E attracted to <E volumes ? Force gravity = <E ? Thank you for your consideration and answers in advance . -1
studiot Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 Perhaps you shouldn't mix well defined scientific concepts with guesswork. If you genuinely want answers please indicate some of your background as you have made several basic mis-statements such as mixing up force and energy. We need to know where to start to discuss this.
Strange Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 37 minutes ago, Zodiac said: It is my belief that high energy is attracted to lower energy states , the force I assume is a gravitational transition ? This is basic thermodynamics, nothing to do with gravity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#Second_law 38 minutes ago, Zodiac said: >E attracted to <E volumes ? Gravity always attracts two masses, regardless of their relative energy. Two objects of 1kg will have the same force between them if they have the same temperature (energy) or one has higher energy than the other. (There is a tiny caveat here, in GR, which we can go into if necessary.)
swansont Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 How are you defining energy state? Regardless, it isn’t the cause. We know that Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance from that mass. Not correlated with thermodynamics
Zodiac Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 11 minutes ago, swansont said: How are you defining energy state? Regardless, it isn’t the cause. We know that Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance from that mass. Not correlated with thermodynamics I am defining the energy state as energy density per point of a volume and proposing in question that any points energy is passive to other points that have less energy . If we are all in agreement that things reach room temperature , we have to explain the motion of energy from A to B . A force of propulsion or other is required ? In regards to space , the retained mass of a moving body , moves the body . The body in motion will continue in motion because the retained energy is required to move to less energy points , as the energy cannot leave the body , the body moves with the energy ? In reply to Strange , mass is attracted to mass but mass is also attracted to space ?
Strange Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 22 minutes ago, Zodiac said: In reply to Strange , mass is attracted to mass but mass is also attracted to space ? No. 22 minutes ago, Zodiac said: I am defining the energy state as energy density per point of a volume and proposing in question that any points energy is passive to other points that have less energy . If we are all in agreement that things reach room temperature , we have to explain the motion of energy from A to B . A force of propulsion or other is required ? No. Energy is not a "thing" that can be moved around by a force. 23 minutes ago, Zodiac said: In regards to space , the retained mass of a moving body , moves the body . The body in motion will continue in motion because the retained energy is required to move to less energy points , as the energy cannot leave the body , the body moves with the energy ? No. Note that motion (and energy) are observer dependent. So one person may say an object is stationary with kinetic energy of zero, while another may say it is moving and therefore has kinetic energy.
Zodiac Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Strange said: No. No. Energy is not a "thing" that can be moved around by a force. No. Note that motion (and energy) are observer dependent. So one person may say an object is stationary with kinetic energy of zero, while another may say it is moving and therefore has kinetic energy. You are a moderator ? Mass and energy are equivalent as Einstein stated ! You can pick up an object with your hands and move it . A force is required to move that mass energy ! I am sorry but your answer is not good thinking! A body orbits another body because of gravity and Newtons laws of motion , a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force . An orbiting body is trying to travel a linear path but the gravitational hold , inertia , stops the orbiting body flying off into space in a linear vector . I do not accept your no answer to be correct as spectral transitions suggests high state energy transitioning to lower state energy . If energy is retained in a body in the form of mass then gravitational transition must be applicable ? A body will remain in motion because the bodies retained energy wants to make the transition to less energy state space ! No doubt this will be a short lived forum experience as moderators are often quite stubborn and become offended easily .
studiot Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Zodiac said: No doubt this will be a short lived forum experience as moderators are often quite stubborn and become offended easily . Are you are only here to be provocative and tweak noses and post false statements. 2 hours ago, Zodiac said: High energy state volumes such as the Sun transfers the volumes high energy to lower energy state volumes in transition . The most massive things in the universe (and the most energetic) can be net recipients of energy flow. At best they are in simple dynamic equilibrium. Quote Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation A black hole of 4.5×1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon, or about 133 μm across) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 K, absorbing as much radiation as it emits. Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb and thereby lose mass. Edited May 6, 2020 by studiot
Zodiac Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, studiot said: Are you are only here to be provocative and tweak noses and post false statements. The most massive things in the universe (and the most energetic) can be net recipients of energy flow. At best they are in simple dynamic equilibrium. I am here in a serious nature ! The internal energy (u) of any system must be equally and proportionally divided by the volume of the system (u/V)/t Any system increases in (u) when that system experiences kE within the interior of the system that increases the magnitude of temperature in that system (u/V)/t+kE=>T where T is temperature A temperature increase IS an increase in energy in the system and this increase has to be divided , equally and proportionally throughout the volume of the system A BH is a lack of mass that gives the BH its mass ! What this means is that any point of space has the potential to become a BH by becoming a negative point , having no mass or energy . When a BH is formed , the negative point at an instant gains the maximum gravitational transition potential . All surrounding energy is then governed by gravitational transition to be centripetally attracted to the negative point . The BH is then formed and starts to expand gaining mass that in turn becomes a high energy state attracting lower energy states ( an apple falls to the ground ) The kE of field dynamics is a bit more complex but I am sure you are aware it is electrifying ! I think I only have one or two posts left today as forum first timer rules apply ! Sorry if I miss something out . Edited May 6, 2020 by Zodiac
Eise Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zodiac said: No doubt this will be a short lived forum experience as moderators are often quite stubborn and become offended easily . It comes from pure stupidy, I can tell you that. Spoiler Of certain kinds of new forum members of course... Edited May 6, 2020 by Eise
Mordred Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Zodiac said: High energy state volumes such as the Sun transfers the volumes high energy to lower energy state volumes in transition . A volume of absolute space would effectively have E=0 and as a consequence of this , the maximum potential to gain energy as in accordance with thermodynamics , ''cold things reach room temperature'' . It is my belief that high energy is attracted to lower energy states , the force I assume is a gravitational transition ? >E attracted to <E volumes ? Force gravity = <E ? Thank you for your consideration and answers in advance . Ok energy is simply the ability to perform work. A higher energy density will try to reach a lower energy density state. However this has nothing to do with force or gravity.
MigL Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Zodiac said: I am here in a serious nature ! The internal energy (u) of any system must be equally and proportionally divided by the volume of the system (u/V)/t Energy is a property of the configuration of a system. A volume of atoms, where all electrons are in their lowest orbitals will have less energy than the same volume of equivalent atoms where all electrons are in higher orbitals. And as a property of the system, you can't separate it from the system; Saying the volume ( object , mass, etc...) follows the energy flow is non-sensical. And if you were serious, you wouldn't post delusional crap about Black Holes. Edited May 6, 2020 by MigL
Mordred Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Zodiac said: A BH is a lack of mass that gives the BH its mass ! What this means is that any point of space has the potential to become a BH by becoming a negative point , having no mass or energy . Nonsense this statement makes literally no sense. Now here is some practical advise. Cosmology already factors in thermodynamics. It forms the fluid equations of the FLRW metric via the numerous equations of state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Edited May 6, 2020 by Mordred
Zodiac Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, MigL said: Energy is a property of the configuration of a system. A volume of atoms, where all electrons are in their lowest orbitals will have less energy than the same volume of equivalent atoms where all electrons are in higher orbitals. And as a property of the system, you can't separate it from the system; Saying the volume ( object , mass, etc...) follows the energy flow is non-sensical. And if you were serious, you wouldn't post delusional crap about Black Holes. I think this may be my last post of the day ! Replying to this post and Mordred's post . Consider a void appearing in the center of a volume of energy and then apply E=(mc^3+kE)/(V/t) You will find if you think proper , that mc^2 applies to area not volume ! Quite obviously the physics is that the surrounding energy of the center void , collapses into the void ! Edited May 6, 2020 by Zodiac
Mordred Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) Wrong mass is resistance to inertia change or acceleration. A point like object such as a particle can have mass. It has nothing to do with volume. Mass density yes but mass itself no. E=mc^2 does not mean mass and energy are equivalent. It means they are related but not equivalent. Energy as stated is the ability to perform work. Definition for mass is above. Neither energy or mass exists on it own they are both properties Edited May 6, 2020 by Mordred
MigL Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) And you can't just rearrange relations ( E-=Moc^3 ???? ) to suit your needs... E=Moc^2 is actually E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 which, for massless particles, like light, that have no Mo, simplifies to... E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (hf)^2 The derivation of this relation took considerable effort and thinking on A Einstein's part. Maybe you could enlighten us with the thinking that went into your derivation of E=Moc^3 ???? Edited May 6, 2020 by MigL
studiot Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Zodiac said: I am here in a serious nature ! The internal energy (u) of any system must be equally and proportionally divided by the volume of the system (u/V)/t Whilst you are awaiting your next chance to post, think about this. (some) Atoms have been around since near the beginning of the universe (if it had a beginning). That seems a pretty stable system to me. Can you show how the internal energy of an atom is evenly distributed throughout the volume occupied by that atom? Edited May 6, 2020 by studiot
Strange Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Zodiac said: Mass and energy are equivalent as Einstein stated ! You can pick up an object with your hands and move it . A force is required to move that mass energy ! The "tiny caveat" I mentioned earlier is the fact that mass and energy are equivalent. So adding energy to an object (e.g. by heating it up) does increase its effective mass. (This effect is so small it can be ignored in almost all situations.) But that doesn't change the fact that: (1) the gravitational effect between two objects depends ONLY on their mass-energy, not on the difference between them and (2) energy is a property of an object: you can move the object along with its associated energy, colour and shape. But you can't push shape, colour or energy as they are not independent things. ! Moderator Note I hoped this was just a question. As it isn't: moved to Speculations.
swansont Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 3 hours ago, Zodiac said: I am defining the energy state as energy density per point of a volume and proposing in question that any points energy is passive to other points that have less energy . If we are all in agreement that things reach room temperature , we have to explain the motion of energy from A to B . So what’s the energy density of the sun?
Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, swansont said: So what’s the energy density of the sun? I can tell you now that it isn't 1.41 g/cm^3 ! The Suns density per cm^3 is dynamic and variable . I can tell you that the volume of the suns energy is denser than the surrounding space and as a natural condition of gravitational transition the Suns energy is attracted to that surrounding space . If this were not so , then EMR could not travel A to B ! 20 hours ago, Strange said: The "tiny caveat" I mentioned earlier is the fact that mass and energy are equivalent. So adding energy to an object (e.g. by heating it up) does increase its effective mass. (This effect is so small it can be ignored in almost all situations.) But that doesn't change the fact that: (1) the gravitational effect between two objects depends ONLY on their mass-energy, not on the difference between them and (2) energy is a property of an object: you can move the object along with its associated energy, colour and shape. But you can't push shape, colour or energy as they are not independent things. ! Moderator Note I hoped this was just a question. As it isn't: moved to Speculations. 1. True but there additional physics to this which I am trying to explain 2. You can push energy , in fact you can curve it as in space-time curvature (please don't ask how as this process will cause the entire universe to arc) Edited May 7, 2020 by Zodiac
swansont Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Zodiac said: I can tell you now that it isn't 1.41 g/cm^3 ! The Suns density per cm^3 is dynamic and variable . I can tell you that the volume of the suns energy is denser than the surrounding space and as a natural condition of gravitational transition the Suns energy is attracted to that surrounding space . If this were not so , then EMR could not travel A to B ! 1. I didn’t ask what the sun’s energy density isn’t. You need to quantify your claim. Otherwise how can we test it? 2. Show that the sun is attracted to empty space. The earth, too. The data are consistent with them being attracted to each other. For example, if I drop a ball, it doesn’t accelerate toward empty space. Why not? 3. How would you test your claim that EMR requires this attraction to empty space? Light is generally not generated via the gravitational interaction. You are making an improper extrapolation, leading to a false conclusion (the sun emits light into empty space, the sun has gravity, therefore the sun’s gravity somehow causes/permits the light to travel in empty space is invalid logic)
Strange Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, Zodiac said: 1. True but there additional physics to this which I am trying to explain What additional physics are you trying to explain, that is not currently explained? 13 minutes ago, Zodiac said: 2. You can push energy , in fact you can curve it as in space-time curvature Citation needed.
MigL Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Zodiac said: You can push energy , in fact you can curve it as in space-time curvature While energy will contribute to the geometry of space-time, just as mass does, it does not curve in any way. You can in fact, argue that even space-time doesn't 'curve', but geometric curvature in the mathematical model ( GR ) effectively reproduce observational evidence. After all, space-time is merely a mathematical concept, a co-ordinate system geometry, if you will. Unless you are confusing energy with light, and the fact that light follows null geodesics ( curved by gravity ). 1
Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, swansont said: 1. I didn’t ask what the sun’s energy density isn’t. You need to quantify your claim. Otherwise how can we test it? 2. Show that the sun is attracted to empty space. The earth, too. The data are consistent with them being attracted to each other. For example, if I drop a ball, it doesn’t accelerate toward empty space. Why not? 3. How would you test your claim that EMR requires this attraction to empty space? Light is generally not generated via the gravitational interaction. You are making an improper extrapolation, leading to a false conclusion (the sun emits light into empty space, the sun has gravity, therefore the sun’s gravity somehow causes/permits the light to travel in empty space is invalid logic) 1. I am working on quantifying it 2. Attracted to each other and ''empty'' space . A comet shows a comet is attracted to the space ahead , that is why Newtons law of motion works . 3. I'd strike a match and see which way the high energy state was directed Edited May 7, 2020 by Zodiac
Strange Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Zodiac said: A comet shows a comet is attracted to the space ahead Why is it only attracted to the space ahead? Why not the space to either side, or behind it? Why doesn't it continuously accelerate if it has a continuous force of attraction pulling it forward (you know, Newton's laws of motion) Why don't stationary objects just start moving because they re attracted to the space ahead?
Recommended Posts