insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 as i have already answered, no they are not increasing in number. in the sun they are actually decreasing in number as several nuclei fuse to create a larger nuclei. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Ok, so the atoms are staying the same volume. Are the number of atoms increasing? http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/pressure.html And about the sun: source: http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s7.htm Equilibrium (or not, but that's a different subject altogether) between forces; between pressure and gravity: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 as i have already answered, no they are not increasing in number. in the sun they are actually decreasing in number as several nuclei fuse to create a larger nuclei. No increase in number of atoms. No increase in volume in atoms. No change in system mass, and no change in system energy. Number of atoms decreasing, but volume of atoms stay the same. New atoms fused together with same total volume of previous atoms used during the fusion process to create new "more massive per same volume" atom. What does that leave as far as what causes pressure to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 No increase in number of atoms. No increase in volume in atoms. No change in system mass, and no change in system energy. Number of atoms decreasing, but volume of atoms stay the same. New atoms fused together with same volume of previous atoms used during the fusion process. What does that leave as far as what causes pressure to change? Read the resource I put up, it actually answers your question with those nice images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Moo, What is "force?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Moo, What is "force?" Generally speaking, Force is whatever can cause an object with mass to accelerate. You can see that definition through the famous F=ma equation. It is, of course, a bit more complicated than that when you go into details or other subjects. There was a need to redefine force in electrodynamics, for example, since it is not QUITE the same definition as force above. An electrostatic force is defined as existing intrinsically between two charges. In other words, unlike the general definition of force, an electrostatic force will not cause any mass to accelerate, but rather masses with a certain charge. Those are definitions taht were invented by human beings to describe physical phenomena. The fact those two definitions use the same word - "FORCE" - does not mean that the phenomena is equal. That's a very broad answer, since I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to get at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Generally speaking, Force is whatever can cause an object with mass to accelerate. You can see that definition through the famous F=ma equation. It is, of course, a bit more complicated than that when you go into details or other subjects. There was a need to redefine force in electrodynamics, for example, since it is not QUITE the same definition as force above. An electrostatic force is defined as existing intrinsically between two charges. In other words, unlike the general definition of force, an electrostatic force will not cause any mass to accelerate, but rather masses with a certain charge. Those are definitions taht were invented by human beings to describe physical phenomena. The fact those two definitions use the same word - "FORCE" - does not mean that the phenomena is equal. That's a very broad answer, since I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to get at here. f=ma is a net force A net force could be 100-75=25. What is the 100 and 75, since the 25 is the net force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 f=ma is a net forceA Net force could be 100-75=25. What is the 100 and 75, since the 25 is the net force? Okay the above "equation" is meaningless without units.. what are you subtracting.. forces? Please mark your numbers with proper units so I understand what you're doing. If you ARE subtracting forces, then "100" and "75" are forces applied on your system in different direction, and "25" is the net force. Since I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of physical system - is this a simple mechanical system like 2 people pushing from opposite directions? is this a system of charged particles moving one towards the other? what is it? - I can't answer as to what they are. I can't know. I'm also still waiting to see how this fits into gas pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Okay the above "equation" is meaningless without units.. what are you subtracting.. forces? Please mark your numbers with proper units so I understand what you're doing. If you ARE subtracting forces, then "100" and "75" are forces applied on your system in different direction, and "25" is the net force. Since I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of physical system - is this a simple mechanical system like 2 people pushing from opposite directions? is this a system of charged particles moving one towards the other? what is it? - I can't answer as to what they are. I can't know. It doesn't matter it's all the same. It's the relationship between two or more bodies of mass interacting with each other during a measured duration. The interaction is MOTION, and motion is measured in distance and time. The more resistance the more time, to the point of equilibrium where the force will be the greatest, and the net force will be zero, as will the acceleration be zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 It's all the same why? bcause you say so?? It's NOT all the same, and if you claim otherwise you need to do much more than just CLAIM it's all the same. This is a SCIENCE forums, not a fantasy writers forum. The fact you're in love with your own theory does not make it REALISTIC. Math, factual data and scientific substantiation, MIGHT. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 I've given the math, and posted my results. Where are my numbers wrong? I've also shown why Newton's numbers are flat out fantasy, as well as Einstein's theory is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 mm flat out fantasy that enables you to be communicating as you are, allows your satnav to work, has allowed us to send probes to every planet in the solar system and then some more. has allowed us to find planets beyond the optical resolution of our telescopes and so on. yup, absolute fantasy and totally useless. you are just plain wrong, and the tragedy is that you refuse to accept even the slightest possibility that you are wrong even in the face of centuries of evidence against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 mm flat out fantasy that enables you to be communicating as you are, allows your satnav to work, has allowed us to send probes to every planet in the solar system and then some more. has allowed us to find planets beyond the optical resolution of our telescopes and so on. yup, absolute fantasy and totally useless. you are just plain wrong, and the tragedy is that you refuse to accept even the slightest possibility that you are wrong even in the face of centuries of evidence against you. Really? What is your velocity towards the center of the Earth while you are standing on the Earth? I just need to know, so I can calculate the time it will take you to be at the center of the Earth, since you are accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. Pure fantasy! Also, how far would we be if we did it different? Are you comparing yourself to yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 i would only be accelerating at 9.81m/s/s if there were not electrostatic repulsion. you are not considering the entire scenario and this is your problem. its like trying to contact someone using a torch and morse code but completely ignoring the fact theres a wall in the way. it just doesn't make sense. now, are you going to grow up and behave like an organism with the ability to apply logic and reason or just stick to 'its fantasy its fantasy, i don't care what you say, its fantasy' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 i would only be accelerating at 9.81m/s/s if there were not electrostatic repulsion. you are not considering the entire scenario and this is your problem. IF? I would be there if I could, but I have no velocity or acceleration, and will remain that way for eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 yes if. luckily for us, the molecules in our body repel the molecules of the ground on the small scale which prevents us from accelerating towards the core. you do have velocity and acceleration, otherwise you would not be well, anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 you do have velocity and acceleration, otherwise you would not be well, anything. But my point of measure is the distance between myself and the center of the Earth, not how far a blood cell travels in 10 seconds. I want to know how much closer I got to the center of the Earth. The two points of measure are between myself that I'll call point A, and the center of the Earth which I'll call point B. Does the distance between points A and B change, while standing on Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 yes, it does, tidal effects from the sun and moon will change the distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 yes, it does, tidal effects from the sun and moon will change the distance. How much time will it take me to arrive at the Earth's center? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 you won't get there. again you are failing to see the whole picture. THINK about whats happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 you won't get there. again you are failing to see the whole picture. THINK about whats happening. So that would be a zero velocity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 no. you would not be going at a constant velocity. and can i just ask, are you being deliberately thick. even 5 year olds will pick up on the fact that the ground is in the way, even if you don't prompt them for it. i mean seriously, there is absolutely no way, short of removal of brain tissue, that you could be this thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Good lord, why is this silly thread still here? If I had a appropriate fishing net, I would cast it into this thread and have a tasty meal of red herring for dinner. To answer one of the multiple questions in this thread, yes, the Earth is moving away from the Sun as the Sun loses mass. Easily calculable: The Sun is losing 9*10-14 solar masses per year due to radiation and solar wind. This mass loss won't affect kinetic energy, but it will affect potential energy. To conserve energy the Earth has to move away from the Sun at the same rate: 9*10-14 astronomical units per year, or 1.3 centimeters per year, or 1.3 meters per century. There are too many other confounding factors to make the change over a course of a year measurable. The 1+ meter change over the course of a century is measurable -- perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I've given the math, and posted my results. Where are my numbers wrong? I've also shown why Newton's numbers are flat out fantasy, as well as Einstein's theory is. You are either trolling on purpose or your memory is shorter than an ant's. Here's a summary of the thread: Post #1: The sun spit out a significant amount of "molten lava" that formed a sphere (Earth) of an order of density due to gravity, it cooled on the exterior surface, and continuously gets further from the sun as it gets cooler. That's how all planets are formed. I thought everyone understood this by now? in post #2 insane_alien points out that the sun is PLASMA, and not liquid and gas. Raises another question of why wouldn't more planets be formed the same way. In post #4 big314mp points out the Sun doesn't have the proper elemental composition to "spit out" planets. Post #3: Just like all matter, it is only a plasma because it is hotter. Let it get cooler and see what happens. Why don't we see it spitting out more planets??? Stick around for a while (about a trillion years) and see what happens. There is a reason planets get further from the sun, because they came from the sun and continuously get further from the sun as they cool and become "ICE GIANTS." Post #5: Klaynos raises the point that trillion years is longer than the universe (hence irrelevant), and that we know how old the sun is. Post #6: I just said a trillion years, as that should should cover the formation of another planet, and then some. Do I know how long it will take to create the newest planet in our solar system? NO. I'm hoping another one is formed in my lifetime so I can say "I told you so!" Post #7: Klaynos states that traveler's theory lack the percision that current theories do have, therefore they have more to offer over traveler's theory, they are more accurate, and therefore there's no reason to see traveler's theory as better. Post #8 traveler distinctly ignores Klaynos remark about the reason the other theories are more valid and states: What do they win, a popularity vote? Go for it. Does that mean they are correct? NO! Why is Mercury getting further away from the sun? How does current theory propose the ice giants formed? The asteroid belt is in the proper density area, so how could another planet be there? Post #9: Klaynos points out there are no references to traveler's claims. Post #10: Repeating the point of #8 while ignoring, it seems, both of Klaynos' explanations. Lastly; I am referring to the outer planets, and how they were formed. They formed just like all of our planets, the most outer planet being formed first and the closest being the most recent to form. Rephrasing (and hereby changing completely the meaning of) "Ice Giants" to "Outer Planets" (that are, by no means, Ice Giants). Post #11: Klaynos is repeating posts #9 and #7, and asking again for references. Post #12: traveler is repeating his insistence on ignoring Klaynos now 3rd time answering his question about the validity of his theory, again ignoring request for substantiation. Post #13 and #15: Klaynos explains the meaning of science and the importance of the scientific method. Finally, explaining why physical theories must be validated by mathematics as well. big314mp adds to Klaynos' points with the same spirit. Post #14: Contain some version of red herring and anecdotal references, no actual references, no substantiations, on the part of traveler. Post #16: traveler's version of what gravity is; no substantiation, no references, blatant jumps from subject to subject - and ends up with an unsubstantiated version of planet formation: Cooling and decay. All planets started out as hot sun matter, and cooled and decayed over time, as they slowly got further from the sun do to becoming less dense (which is the reason they got further from the sun). Obviously, since the most outer planet formed first it has been cooling and decaying for the longest amount of time, while Mercury was the most recently formed, so it is the hottest, and has had less time to cool and decay. Our Earth will eventually look like Mars (desert) and be in what is now Mars' orbit, and Mercury will have an atmosphere and water as Earth does now and be in the orbit we are in now. Posts #17, #18, big314mp and yourdadonapogos try to point out what current planet formation theories state, and add observations. Post #19: traveler regresses to arguing about validity of theories regardless of evidence. Finally, claims that Mass is energy is heat. Allow the mass to cool and it becomes less dense and must expand and become less dense. Think water to ice. No substantiation, no reference, and absolutely no physics. Post #20, #21, #22: big314mp, Klaynos and Edtharan point out there are no proofs and substantiation to any of traveler's claims. Edtharan seems to do a good job (as usual) explaining (again in this thread) the point of the scientific method and the necessity for reference and proof. Again, claims that the other theories do have proof and traveler's theory has no proof whatsoever is raised. Traveler is asked to provide substantiation. Post #21 BabyAstronaut points out this is a moot discussion, since the arguments supplied by traveler are unsupported by reality or by any sort of proof. Post #22: traveler tries to argue no one knows better than him, and attempts to convince everyone that his theory is correct despite evidence to the contrary by supplying absolutely no evidence. Post #25, #27: Kyrish joins the parade and - AGAIN - states traveler is speaking with no substantiation about theories that are proven OTHERWISE. big314mp raises more points that are posing a serious problem to traveler's theory. Finally the thread moves to Speculation. Post #28: traveler tries to convince everyone that he has supplied evidence. Then, that others haven't. Posts #29,#30, #31, 33 - Klaynos, Sayonara, Edtharan and elas explain again that the current theories are more valid than traveler's theory, and that traveler must supply evidence and math to support his claims. Post #32: traveler claims he has no theory, but rather an idea. Post #33: Sayonara points out the inconsistencies in traveler's claims. and on and on everyone try to point out the same. Post #38: traveler asks a seemingly unrelated question: If you could "instantly" enclose the sun in a larger enclosed sphere, would pressure build? Many replies are confused as to how this is related to anything on the thread. On the next posts, traveler tries to claim it is, with no substantiation, no proof, no connection. When it is pointed out that the two subjects are unrelated, he claims they are, again with no proof or substantiation. And on. And on. And on. To sum this up, traveler: You have raised an idea/hypothesis/theory that is inconsistent with current observations and factual data. Your idea/hypothesis/theory does not support ITSELF. Your idea/hypothesis/theory does not have any validation or substantiation, no referencing whatsoever. Any attempts to get you to bring anything forward resulted in you totally ignoring it. Not once in this thread have you posted any mathematical equations or mathematical computations that shall attempt to validate your theory. You have been consistently ignoring our requests for references and substnatiations and any question you dislike you answer back with an emotional retort of the spirit of "you claim I'm hallucinating??"; a red herring at best, an attempt at personal attack at worst. You are not doing science, it seems you don't understand basic physics, but the worst of all is that you seem to think no one knows better than you. Your theory is unsupported in reality, has no math, cannot predict anything and is based on flawed physics. You have just failed peer review. Welcome to the club. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Good lord, why is this silly thread still here? If I had a appropriate fishing net, I would cast it into this thread and have a tasty meal of red herring for dinner. To answer one of the multiple questions in this thread, yes, the Earth is moving away from the Sun as the Sun loses mass. Easily calculable: The Sun is losing 9*10-14 solar masses per year due to radiation and solar wind. This mass loss won't affect kinetic energy, but it will affect potential energy. To conserve energy the Earth has to move away from the Sun at the same rate: 9*10-14 astronomical units per year, or 1.3 centimeters per year, or 1.3 meters per century. There are too many other confounding factors to make the change over a course of a year measurable. The 1+ meter change over the course of a century is measurable -- perhaps. So what kind of time interval are we talking about if everything was reversed to the point where the Earth was part of the sun? How long ago was the Earth born using the above scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts