traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 Not if reactions have taken place - not nescessarily. Drop a minto into a coke bottle. The number of molecules atoms etc are the same at T=0 as they are 30 seconds later - but, there is a massive increase in pressure - and thats just a physical reaction, let alone a chemical or a nuclear one. The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere?
big314mp Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere? No.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) No. So I take it the volume of the atoms is less than the volume of the sphere? Is that correct? It was an analogy - in the case of the sun - it has already been 'shaken up'. So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct? What if the "sun" were the youngest "planet" of our local system, which is all part of a larger system, the galaxy, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system..... Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler multiple post merged
big314mp Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 So I take it the volume of the atoms is less than the volume of the sphere? Is that correct? So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct? The first bit is correct. That is the nature of a gas. As to the second bit. It is technically correct. I would also be very surprised if astronomers were able to measure that difference. If this is leading to a "well if the earth is moving away now, it must have started from the sun" argument, I'm going to head that off now: As we run the "video" backwards, the sun becomes more massive, drawing the earth very slightly closer. Then the earth doesn't get any closer. Why? Because the sun has reached its maximum mass, and then we are back at the protoplanetary disc.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 The first bit is correct. That is the nature of a gas. As to the second bit. It is technically correct. I would also be very surprised if astronomers were able to measure that difference. If this is leading to a "well if the earth is moving away now, it must have started from the sun" argument, I'm going to head that off now: As we run the "video" backwards, the sun becomes more massive, drawing the earth very slightly closer. Then the earth doesn't get any closer. Why? Because the sun has reached its maximum mass, and then we are back at the protoplanetary disc. Of course it's at its maximum mass, the planet is now once again where it came from, when going in reverse. Keep going in reverse for eternity.
DrP Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere? Well the volume can't increase if you've encapsulated it, but as the temperature rises due to the BF nuclear reaction going on then it follows that the Pressure will rise too. (PV=nRT) So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct? Over millions and millions of years - maybe so - but generally negligable - the sun is very big! What if the "sun" were the youngest "planet" of our local system, which is all part of a larger system, the galaxy, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system..... Now that's just rubbish traveller..... come on mate. The sun is a star. Everyone knows that. I think we may be about to go round in another circle here.
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 If the pressure rises, something is trying to expand. Does the total overall volume of all the atoms in the sphere remain constant? nothing needs to expand, the volume of the atoms changes as there are nuclear reactions although, you should really be talking about ions in the case of the sun. Can you hurt your hand punching air? no, but then the pressure differential is far too small. if you could punch at a few thousand miles an hour, appart from being a superb boxer you would be able to hurt your hand on air. i am not sure what this has to do with it though. You mean the mass (matter) is there, right? it manifests as mass but it is not matter that is being converted as the amount of matter will remain constant, it will just be in a lower energy configuration which means the energy has been released to the system. But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later? nope, no reason for this to be so, volume is not a conserved quantity. The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere? not a chance, if you did you would have a complete plenum which, is probably impossible and would definitely not be made of normal matter like the sun. So I take it the volume of the atoms is less than the volume of the sphere? Is that correct? yep. So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct? yes but it is miniscule and other effects dominate it. What if the "sun" were the youngest "planet" of our local system, which is all part of a larger system, the galaxy, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system..... the sun is the oldest part of the solar system. and the galaxy is part of a larger system (called a cluster, can't remember the specific name) and thats part of the local supercluster(virgo super cluster?) and thats part of the universe. so ehh... whats the what if about?
big314mp Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 when going in reverse. Keep going in reverse for eternity. Except the solar system hasn't existed for eternity. The earth moving slightly away can be explained. A blob of gas levitating off of the sun can't. End of story.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 The first bit is correct. That is the nature of a gas. So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow??
big314mp Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 (called a cluster, can't remember the specific name) The local group? So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow?? This above demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what pressure is. Pressure is a force exerted by atoms hitting the sides of a container. The atoms hit harder (i.e. the temperature goes up so they move faster) and the pressure rises.
DrP Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow?? As I said - Temperature is increasing due to the BF nuclear reation going on and volume isn't - so by PV=nRT......... pressure increases.
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow?? look pressure is just the momentum transfer of atoms/molecules/stuff banging into each other. there are two ways to increase pressure, 1/ increase the frequency of collisions(more stuff) 2/ increase the energy of collisions(hotter) the inverse will result in lower pressures. the atoms stay the same size except under all but the most extreme of conditions where you get stuff like electron degeneracy pressures from forcing the electron orbitals out of position.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 The local group? This above demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what pressure is. Pressure is a force exerted by atoms hitting the sides of a container. The atoms hit harder (i.e. the temperature goes up so they move faster) and the pressure rises. Wait, I thought everything was relative? Which is it?? How do you, "hit harder?" I know how to "hit faster", but not "harder." I tried to hit harder at the same velocity, but in order for the work to increase the resistance (load) (opposing force) had to increase, which means the net force decreased, and the acceleration decreased, so it took me longer to go from 0-1.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 what has that got to do with it? everything!
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I tried to hit harder at the same velocity, but in order for the work to increase the resistance (load) (opposing force) had to increase, which means the net force decreased, and the acceleration decreased, so it took me longer to go from 0-1. .... huh?
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) I thought I made my point already. .... huh? If you are on a bench press, and you consistently lift the bar 1 foot in 1 second, how do you increase the work? Edited October 10, 2008 by traveler multiple post merged
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 oh n/m it wasn't showing till now? hmm. anyway, to hit harder you hit faster. you don't have it moving at the same velocity. and what resistance? there is no resistance.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 oh n/m it wasn't showing till now? hmm. anyway, to hit harder you hit faster. you don't have it moving at the same velocity. and what resistance? there is no resistance. So you weren't trying before? Did you not give it your all before? We are measuring you at a specific velocity.
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Posted October 10, 2008 I want to test you to see how fast you can lift 10 lbs 10 feet. You give it everything you have and complete the task in 1 second. If I add weight, can you lift that greater weight 10 feet in 1 second as before? (disregard "getting tired").
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 what has this got to do with containing the sun in a giant sphere. obviously not if i can only just lift 10lbs 10ft in one second. i fail to see what this has to do with anything, gasses do not behave like weightlifting.
Recommended Posts