Hijack from What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

[Bill McC]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Why not use mass as mass and volume as volume? They’re different things, after all. You may as well be using banana as apple and celery as cheetah. 

You guys are familiar with using mass with the meaning of a specific volume of a specific material as it exists at a certain temperature at sea level, that will create a certain inertial force “no matter the expansion of its body due to heat." In that theory it will have the same inertia regardless of its expansion due to temperature as long as it is in a perfect vacuum that does not exist. And as long as its density is exactly the same at a higher temperature. Because as a substance increases in temperature its hardness usually decreases, causing it to impart inertial force differently. If you take two identical hammers one at room temperature and one heated orange to yellow hot, and drive a wrought iron rod into the ground, the cold hammer will bounce off the rod not effecting the rod, but the hot hammer will drive the rod many inches into the ground. So again to take a word whose origin comes from a word that means a lump or volume of stuff was just the stupidest thing since reversing Benjamin Franklin’s exact markings for electricity. I have seen nothing but confusion from its use in any field thanks to physics once again choosing the wrong word or words to create a convention for a field of study. 

You can also do that hammer demonstration with a hammer that has a double head, one with a dead blow raw hide and one with a solid metal head. The metal head will not effect the iron rod driven into the ground while the raw hide side will move the rod almost comically fast into the ground. I am fully aware that in theory the moving hammer has the same potential inertial force however its density changes its ability to deliver it or not. 

If you were going to be scientific you would state you have a volume of a known substance that is heated or cooled to a certain temperature, and its current density or its current specific gravity. Because the word mass means volume to older people, which changes as a substance is heated or cooled. 

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

the word mass means volume to older people

Not older people who prize accuracy and clarity. You may as well be claiming that everyone here is wrong for not acknowledging that modern day computers are human. It’s absurd, really.

None of your meandering reply did anything whatsoever to address the entirely valid criticisms of your point, but at least you’re consistent in your wrongness.

Mass doesn’t change based on temperature. It may change forms or get displaced from the original quantity, but it doesn’t change. Suggesting otherwise makes you look foolish, as does digging in your heels when repeatedly corrected. End program. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by iNow

[Bill McC]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not older people who prize accuracy and clarity. You may as well be claiming that everyone here is wrong for not acknowledging that modern day computers are human. It’s absurd, really.

None of your meandering reply did anything whatsoever to address the entirely valid criticisms of your point, but at least you’re consistent in your wrongness.

Mass doesn’t change based on temperature. End program. 

So a metal hammer cooled with liquid nitrogen, Argon or helium can deliver the same inertial force to an object as a room temperature hammer? I think not. A very cold meteorite might shatter by being struck from a single round of metallic uranium. While a warmer one might end earth as we know it. 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

So a metal hammer cooled with liquid nitrogen, Argon or helium can deliver the same inertial force to an object as a room temperature hammer? I think not. A very cold meteorite might shatter by being struck from a single round of metallic uranium. While a warmer one might end earth as we know it. 

I don't know how you manage to get through your day without someone getting hurt.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Mass doesn’t change based on temperature

Relativity says it does. The temperature is related to the thermal energy content, and more thermal energy means more mass. This will be E/c^2, and energy content varies as kT and k is around 10^-23 J/K ( or ~10^-10 MeV/K)so this means the variation is exceedingly small.

Mass variation with nuclear excitation has been measured; the energy scale is MeV, and you'd need a very warm environment (billions of degrees) to see the equivalent effect

52 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

So a metal hammer cooled with liquid nitrogen, Argon or helium can deliver the same inertial force to an object as a room temperature hammer? I think not. A very cold meteorite might shatter by being struck from a single round of metallic uranium. 

That's because of brittleness and other material properties, not any inertial issues.

Changing temperature can change the elasticity of the collision.

[iNow]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

The temperature is related to the thermal energy content, and more thermal energy means more mass

That makes good sense. Thank you. 

1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

So a metal hammer cooled with liquid nitrogen, Argon or helium can deliver the same inertial force to an object as a room temperature hammer? I think not.

Correct, but as swansont already highlighted, that’s due to changes in other properties, not mass.

You can repeat and meander all you want. Mass and volume are not equivalent. 

[Bill McC]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Relativity says it does. The temperature is related to the thermal energy content, and more thermal energy means more mass. This will be E/c^2, and energy content varies as kT and k is around 10^-23 J/K ( or ~10^-10 MeV/K)so this means the variation is exceedingly small.

Mass variation with nuclear excitation has been measured; the energy scale is MeV, and you'd need a very warm environment (billions of degrees) to see the equivalent effect

That's because of brittleness and other material properties, not any inertial issues.

Changing temperature can change the elasticity of the collision.

But yet we can take a bag of oxygen and acetylene gas and knockdown homes with force, push the ground down and create a pressure wave that will knock the wind out of you perhaps a 1/4 mile away. I cannot imagine the weight of acetylene involved would be able to do that, although hydrocarbons are extremely powerful explosives. 

In the olden times, just after dinosaurs, ambient radiation gave power to the bomb. The more experiments I do, the more I am assured that is the case. I used to receive special advanced Hazmat training; the trainers were few and traveled the U.S. teaching people in the field. One of the films we watched was of an ammonia and propane detonation that was silent and only affected one person in the room, with other objects and even paper in the room not affected by the "blast." Before the film, as he explained the situation, that they were making a training video of how to protect against anhydrous ammonia, using a site of an actual spill of anhydrous ammonia. He said it all went bad when they went to start the forklift. Being the clown, I said, wow, someone will be blown through a wall because I had known of this from farm accidents involving animal urine and methane. Cows flying over the moon is perhaps an overstatement but making it to another county a short distance away is not. So the trainer hit me on the back of the head and said, pay attention; you have never seen it before, and he was correct. It is a military-like environment, and he was playing the dirll the sergeant. So he runs the video, and the fellow in what they called a turtle rebreather was standing there ready to absorb the spill as the other fellow started the forklift. When he started the forklift, the guy with the camera was filming the whole scene. He shook a little from the blast but was ok. He panned to the guy with the turtle rebreather that was now stuck in the wall. He saw that he had been blown through the wall except for his rebreather. The rebreather looks like a big turtle shell on your back. It houses bellows that allow you to re-breath your own air after the CO2 is scrubbed from the air. It was strapped to him and did not penetrate the cinder blocks. The trainer ended the film and told us that the fellow was alive on the other side of the wall but very seriously injured. With the small amount of propane involved upon starting a forklift, I doubt you could make a case for E=MCˆ2. You guys do not have to believe me; I am just sharing what happened in my life that might save someone's life one day. At this time, most in the field were aware of the electrical aspect of the universe. A human being positively accelerated from zero to a velocity that allowed him to penetrate a cinder block wall four feet from his position, would have been killed if it was not an electrical effect or artificial gravity positively accelerating him. 

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

But yet we can take a bag of oxygen and acetylene gas and knockdown homes with force, push the ground down and create a pressure wave that will knock the wind out of you perhaps a 1/4 mile away. I cannot imagine the weight of acetylene involved would be able to do that, although hydrocarbons are extremely powerful explosives. 

This is irrelevant to the discussion, yes?

[Bill McC]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

This is irrelevant to the discussion, yes?

I was making a relation to the size of the bomb core and the force of the detonation not correlating to the weight of the explosive involved, lending doubt to the E=MCˆ2.

[Area54]

3 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Because the word mass means volume to older people,

I'm an older person. I've never used the word mass to mean volume.

A lot of my friends and former work colleagues are older people. I've never once heard any of them use the word mass to mean volume.

Most of the people I learned from were really "older people", so old that most of them are now dead. None of them ever used the word mass to mean volume.

I wonder if this is just an artifact of the fact that most of them were educated.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

I was making a relation to the size of the bomb core and the force of the detonation not correlating to the weight of the explosive involved, lending doubt to the E=MCˆ2.

So you made an irrelevant comment based on a lack of understanding of relativity, and still thinking it casts doubt on the theory. Got it. (for the record, the m in E=mc^2 is not the mass of the explosive itself. Feel free to ask questions if you want to diminish your ignorance)

4 hours ago, Bill McC said:

the word mass means volume to older people, which changes as a substance is heated or cooled

In science we use science definitions, not lay definitions.

[Janus]

1 hour ago, Bill McC said:

I was making a relation to the size of the bomb core and the force of the detonation not correlating to the weight of the explosive involved, lending doubt to the E=MCˆ2.

Sorry, that makes no sense.  In a chemical explosion, the energy comes from the rearrangement of the molecular bonds. The difference in bond energies between the starting and resulting compounds is expressed as an increase of kinetic energy of the resulting compounds.  These bonds involve the outer electrons of the atoms

E=mc^2 would only come in if you were to very carefully measure the mass of the bomb before detonating, and were able to contain all of the resulting bomb material, let it cool back to the initial bomb's temp and then measure it ( and only it).

Then you would notice a very, very slight decrease in mass.   For acetylene, the difference works out to be in the range of 1 x 10^10 grams per gram you started with. 

E= mc^2 tells you how much energy you can get if all of m is converted to energy.  But with chemical explosions, m( the mass converted to energy) is minuscule compared to M, (the total mass of the explosive)  It is so small, that it is, for all practical purposes, immeasurable.   You need a nuclear reaction, dealing with the bonds holding the nucleus itself together to get measurable changes between before and after masses.

[farsideofourmoon]

Hijack from What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

I personally believe climate change is inevitable. Three times in earths past half of our planet was covered in ice. We just happen to be in the defrost stage.

The trick is adapting to whatever lays ahead of us.

As I see it

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

Hijack from What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.

I personally believe climate change is inevitable. Three times in earths past half of our planet was covered in ice. We just happen to be in the defrost stage.

The trick is adapting to whatever lays ahead of us.

As I see it

Everyone thinks it is inevitable. You seem to have not heard that there is concern that humans are impacting climate change and that as a result are due to suffer some self-inflicted harm.

[farsideofourmoon]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Everyone thinks it is inevitable. You seem to have not heard that there is concern that humans are impacting climate change and that as a result are due to suffer some self-inflicted harm.

I agree humans have had and still have an impact on the earth’s climate. But in the long run our involvement is short lived. Fossil fuels are finite. Either we consume it all or leave some in the ground it amounts to a phase that will pass, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

Edited April 24, 2021 by farsideofourmoon
clarify

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I agree humans have had and still have an impact on the earth’s climate. But in the long run our involvement is short lived. Fossil fuels are finite. Either we consume it all or leave some in the ground it amounts to a phase that will pass, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

Hmm. Good reasoning. That makes me feel better about the possibility of nuclear war. Its duration will be short compared to the life of the earth. The number of nuclear weapons is limited. Either we explode them all or leave some of them in their silos, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

[farsideofourmoon]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Relativity says it does. The temperature is related to the thermal energy content, and more thermal energy means more mass.

I respectfully disagree

I’m not sure what you two are debating. Matter can not be created nor destroyed. It only takes one form or another.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, in advance

[zapatos]

41 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I respectfully disagree

I’m not sure what you two are debating. Matter can not be created nor destroyed. It only takes one form or another.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, in advance

Mass and matter are not the same thing. Mass can change.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I’m not sure what you two are debating

We weren’t debating. I said something inaccurate and swansont kindly corrected me. 

Why do I get the feeling some sock puppetry is afoot? 

[farsideofourmoon]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Either we explode them all or leave some of them in their silos, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

There is a better way.

I propose that the United Nations collectively ask all nuclear countries to combine all the atomic bombs in the worlds inventory and through the United Nations convert these nuclear bombs into electric generation wherever possible.

Or so it seems to me

(:-

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, farsideofourmoon said:

Either we consume it all or leave some in the ground it amounts to a phase that will pass, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

There is a better way..

I propose that we proactively fight to undo our contribution to climate change and convert solar and wind power to electric generation wherever possible.

Or so it seems to me

(:-

[Bill McC]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:27 AM, Bufofrog said:

OK... what is the mass of 1 liter?

To me, mass is volume, so one liter would be one liter. 

I am aware in "physics," "physicists" use mass as it best confuses an embarrassing subject they do not wish to discuss, in my opinion. Physicists check a substance's specific gravity, subsequently giving the substance in question known kinetic energy to get it moving and known kinetic energy to bring it to a stop. Whether or not it is hotter or colder (more or less dense) than the substance known at sea level on earth at room temperature, which is contradictory to the original base definition of mass (a volume of some substance). It is like what happened to electricity; they took the perfect labeling and just reversed it, in my opinion. So here, mass does not mean volume at all. You may as well discuss steel, by saying "a blob of steel,” that tells you everything you need to know about the blob. Except for what effects it may be experiencing and how big it is. Specific gravity seems a bit more sane and explanatory. Instead of saying the object's mass is great or small, you would say steel's kinetic energy is what it is and we have a blob this big, if that is what mass means to a "physicist."
If that is mass as defined by "physics," it seems like an attack on the English language if you ask me. I have seen intelligent conversations go awry so often because everyone has a different opinion of mass, and I am not talking about regular people but "physicists" themselves. Examining the word mass, which caused the problem, each person had another or acceptable use of it if only in their mind.

If you are talking scientifically, you have to say what the substance in question is, how much of it there is, and what temperature or other effects it is experiencing, which could be velocity, rays, etc.  
The use of "massive object," which is perhaps as close as you can get to volume, is used often amongst "physics" folk, wrong perhaps if only to themselves, but still used that way. Would anyone think of fifty pounds of tungsten as a massive object or having a lot of mass? Would anyone think of a Hindenburg-sized bag of popcorn as a massive object, or having a lot of mass? Mass has been desecrated by “physics”. 

The "physics" term of mass is just the weight of the substance in question on earth at sea level compared to water as unity, the specific gravity, not the weight of the object it is made of that is being examined. It would be like looking at an asteroid heading for earth about to destroy us and saying, "holy shat, look at the specific gravity" you want to talk about poor English and poor science. Wow!

On 4/23/2021 at 9:43 PM, MigL said:

The definition of density is Mass/Volume.
Your statements are very confused.

I was being sarcastic about knowing people in the aerospace field, and having contributed to stealth.
But sure enough, you took the bait, and went off on another scatter-brained tangent.

Density is not Mass/Volume, even in "physics." According to "Physicists," mass is the weight of a certain quantity of the substance in question at room temperature at sea level, which converts to force needed to move that quantity at sea level from a stationary position to some velocity over a specific time period in a vacuum. That inertial force required will be the same force required even if you are on the moon or deep space or if the object is superheated and expands greatly. 

Suppose we take a 100-pound piece of steel measured on earth at sea level at room temperature. We know the density of the material at room temperature. If the steel is on the moon at room temperature, its "mass" nor its density will change, but its weight will on the moon compared to earth. If we heat the same piece of steel to 400 degrees Fahrenheit, its density will change, its mass will not change according to "physics" because it will still cause the same inertia. I agree that its volume will change, the steel will expand, and its weight will remain the same on earth at sea level and on the moon before and after heating. Its "mass" will remain the same, and its density will go down.  So the missing heat factor or rays bombarding it would be needed to be known to make the claim you made. The word mass has always been in "modern physics," a big destroyer to communicating knowledge and understanding. All you say by describing "a mass of steel" or "the mass of steel" in "physics" is "steel" in "physics;" there are no volumes given no heat factors for mass. Steels mass is the mass of steel its weight on earth at sea level in "physics." Which again is exactly the opposite meaning to the word mass. 

[swansont]

 

19 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

To me, mass is volume, so one liter would be one liter. 

!

Moderator Note

From our “guidelines for posting in speculations”

You must also know the terminology. You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else

IOW, this will not fly

 

 

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

To me, mass is volume...

 

To me, "Bill" means "pompous".

Doesn't it get tiring getting your jollies by swimming against the current all day long?

[MigL]

you don't seem to have reflected on much during your vacation.
Why not stick to what you know, and try to learn some science from the many people here who are knowledgeable in it ?

If you wish to discuss the history og Grumman's Bethpage ( Long Island ) facility, its many Navy fighters, its lunar lander program, many unbuilt projects, and collaboration with Northrop, I would be more than glad to engage in conversation.
As for science, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.