Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Sun releases 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 of Earth surface per second. If we assume photon with wavelength 532 nm is average, it has energy: E=6.62607*10^-34 * 299792458 / 532*10^-9 = 3.734*10^-19 J And there will be 1367 J / 3.734*10^-19 J = 3.66*10^21 photons per second per meter square of Earth surface. Photons have momentum p=E/c I thank you for the information , although at this time I do not completely understand it. 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 would be equal to the force? EMR (at any part of the spectrum) is photons; photons are the quanta of EMR. Photons have energy and will exert a force when absorbed or scattered. It is incorrect to say that the energy exerts the force. How much force does a Photon exert on matter, would there be enough force to push an house brick through space? How much thermodynamic increase would be needed with no friction to make movement? Does or can the Neutron hold a charge? Does the Proton expand when energy is added? ''An object is gravitationally bound to a massive body, if it doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to escape orbit of that massive body.'' What about thermodynamic increase or decrease of radiation? ''The gravitational binding energy of a system is equal to the negative of the total gravitational potential energy' Is this what I have just drawn has such? Equal to negative?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 How much force does a Photon exert on matter, would there be enough force to push an house brick through space? How much thermodynamic increase would be needed with no friction to make movement? The momentum exerted by an absorbed photon is E/c (reflection doubles that). Since force is the change in momentum over time, the force would be P/c, where P is the laser power. Thus, absorption of the light from a 100-watt laser would exert 0.33 micronewtons of force. i.e. it would accelerate a 1 kg brick at 0.33 micron/s2. After a year of such acceleration, the brick would be moving at just over 10 m/s Does or can the Neutron hold a charge? Neutrons are neutral.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 ''In classical statistical mechanics, the equipartition theorem is a general formula that relates the temperature of a system with its average energies. The equipartition theorem is also known as the law of equipartition, equipartition of energy, or simply equipartition. The original idea of equipartition was that, in thermal equilibrium, energy is shared equally among all of its various forms; for example, the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom in the translational motion of a molecule should equal that of its rotational motions.'' In thermal equilibrium, my diagram, all forces are equal to sustain distance? increase either force to gain contracting or expanding?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 ''An object is gravitationally bound to a massive body, if it doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to escape orbit of that massive body.'' What about thermodynamic increase or decrease of radiation? ''The gravitational binding energy of a system is equal to the negative of the total gravitational potential energy' "An object is gravitationally bound to a massive body, if it doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to escape orbit of that massive body" contains all the information that's relevant. A thermodynamic process must affect the KE if it is to be a factor in an object being gravitationally bound or not.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 The momentum exerted by an absorbed photon is E/c (reflection doubles that). Since force is the change in momentum over time, the force would be P/c, where P is the laser power. Thus, absorption of the light from a 100-watt laser would exert 0.33 micronewtons of force. i.e. it would accelerate a 1 kg brick at 0.33 micron/s2. After a year of such acceleration, the brick would be moving at just over 10 m/s Neutrons are neutral. So over distance and several years, a 1kg brick would continue to accelerate to higher Velocities? And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral? "An object is gravitationally bound to a massive body, if it doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to escape orbit of that massive body" contains all the information that's relevant. A thermodynamic process must affect the KE if it is to be a factor in an object being gravitationally bound or not. I disagree, acceleration in an equilibrium of two masses, does not need KE to move, if I was to put more energy output in either of the magnets , the elastic band will expand, hence movement. No kinetic energy of motion needed. So if I have two house bricks in space, that orbited and were binded to a central mass, by balance of F, equaling 0 velocity, centripetal or centrifugal, and I change the thermodynamics of one of the bricks, then the distance between the central mass and the brick will change. , At night , the planet loses heat/energy in the form of infra red radiation, what is the energy loss compared to energy gained in the daytime? ''A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium with itself if the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform.'' The work needed is increase or decrease in mass by thermodynamics?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 So over distance and several years, a 1kg brick would continue to accelerate to higher Velocities? Yes, but eventually you have to worry about the Doppler shift of the light — the power seen in the brick's frame will drop as the light is redshifted, and the acceleration drops accordingly. This is the basic idea behind a solar sail, only leveraging the higher impulse of reflection. And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral? Energy isn't substance, it's a property, so this question doesn't make sense. It's like asking if tall can pass through a person. I disagree, acceleration in an equilibrium of two masses, does not need KE to move, if I was to put more energy output in either of the magnets , the elastic band will expand, hence movement. No kinetic energy of motion needed. Show this with physics, rather than your mistaken, straw-man belief. (hint: moving objects have KE. Not moving means v = 0)
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Tell a lie there is kinetic energy involved. ''Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperaturegreater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, interatomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. ''
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 At night , the planet loses heat/energy in the form of infra red radiation, what is the energy loss compared to energy gained in the daytime? [/font][/color] Is it warming overall, cooling, or staying the same? If the overall average temperature is the same, then the gains and losses are equal.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 ''And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral'' If I fired an electrical beam at a Neutral , what would be the effect? Would the neutral absorb the beam?
Strange Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 ''And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral'' If I fired an electrical beam at a Neutral , what would be the effect? Would the neutral absorb the beam? What is an "electrical beam"?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Tell a lie there is kinetic energy involved. ''Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperaturegreater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, interatomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. '' A lie? Don't go there. What part of "thermal motion" indicates to you that there is no motion? And, if you had studied physics at all, you'd understand that thermal motion is separate from center-of-mass motion, which is the bulk KE of the object. A brick at rest has no CoM motion and no KE if you look at it from a kinematic viewpoint, which is what orbital mechanics is concerned with. You can't go cherry picking wikipedia definitions for terminology and think that because you found some overlap you have gained understanding
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Is it warming overall, cooling, or staying the same? If the overall average temperature is the same, then the gains and losses are equal. Global warming I believe, caused by thermodynamic increase, taking more on than we emit. What is an "electrical beam"? A weak lightning for example, a pulse of electricity. A lie? Don't go there. What part of "thermal motion" indicates to you that there is no motion? And, if you had studied physics at all, you'd understand that thermal motion is separate from center-of-mass motion, which is the bulk KE of the object. A brick at rest has no CoM motion and no KE if you look at it from a kinematic viewpoint, which is what orbital mechanics is concerned with. You can't go cherry picking wikipedia definitions for terminology and think that because you found some overlap you have gained understanding I understand my own ideas, and am trying to convey it into something you know and understand, and today I have learnt more than I knew yesterday. You say a brick has no KE at rest, what about the Kinetics happening inside the brick on a quantum scale? I am not cherry picking, I understand that 0+E = M+, <mass increase> therefore gravity increase, although small and on a tiny scale, with 0 friction, and Fn not applying, only one force is involved. ''The Earth's absorption of solar radiation, followed by its outgoing thermal radiation are the two most important processes that determine the temperature and climate of the Earth.'' The sponge is becoming waterlogged? This may sound silly , does energy have a weight?
Kramer Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Sensey Posted Yesterday, 12:36 PM Sun releases 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 of Earth surface per second. If we assume photon with wavelength 532 nm is average, it has energy: E=6.62607*10^-34 * 299792458 / 532*10^-9 = 3.734*10^-19 J And there will be 1367 J / 3.734*10^-19 J = 3.66*10^21 photons per second per meter square of Earth surface. Photons have momentum p=E/c ------ And how is the mass loosed by the sun, gained by the earth? Isn't it substance?
Sensei Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) ------ And how is the mass loosed by the sun, gained by the earth? Isn't it substance? See thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85656-solar-fusion-neutrinos-and-age-of-solar-system/ That's were we're discussing it. Edited October 1, 2014 by Sensei
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Sensey Posted Yesterday, 12:36 PM Sun releases 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 of Earth surface per second. If we assume photon with wavelength 532 nm is average, it has energy: E=6.62607*10^-34 * 299792458 / 532*10^-9 = 3.734*10^-19 J And there will be 1367 J / 3.734*10^-19 J = 3.66*10^21 photons per second per meter square of Earth surface. Photons have momentum p=E/c ------ And how is the mass loosed by the sun, gained by the earth? Isn't it substance? The Sun replaces its own mass by the Proton-Proton chain?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Global warming I believe, caused by thermodynamic increase, taking more on than we emit. Yes, that's true. If you were specifically talking about the earth it would have been good to mention it. You say a brick has no KE at rest, what about the Kinetics happening inside the brick on a quantum scale? You need to distinguish between CoM motion and the motion of the constituents. Vague questions, or ones that change the context of a discussion, can't be answered properly, and any answers you get to one question are not guaranteed to apply to a different situation. I am not cherry picking, Given your demonstrated limited understanding of physics, I submit that you aren't in the best position to assess this. This may sound silly , does energy have a weight? Energy isn't a substance, it's a property. An object with more internal energy has more mass than an identical object that lacks that internal energy.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 See thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85656-solar-fusion-neutrinos-and-age-of-solar-system/ That's were we're discussing it. I just looked at that thread, that looks seriously complex, good luck.
Sensei Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 The Sun replaces its own mass by the Proton-Proton chain? Protons fuses to Deuterium, Protons fuses with Deuterium to Helium-3, Helium-3 fuses with Helium-3 to Helium-4, During fusion there is released energy and sometimes neutrinos.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Yes, that's true. If you were specifically talking about the earth it would have been good to mention it. You need to distinguish between CoM motion and the motion of the constituents. Vague questions, or ones that change the context of a discussion, can't be answered properly, and any answers you get to one question are not guaranteed to apply to a different situation. Given your demonstrated limited understanding of physics, I submit that you aren't in the best position to assess this. Energy isn't a substance, it's a property. An object with more internal energy has more mass than an identical object that lacks that internal energy. An object with more energy than an identical object has more mass, yes, therefore more weight? An object in an equilibrium state of distance, created by opposing and attractive F, an increase in energy will increase the mass and change the position of the object in accordance to gravity, until it finds its new equilibrium of distance/gravity binding?
Strange Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 The Sun replaces its own mass by the Proton-Proton chain? No it loses mass (and energy) that way.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 ? Distance over time will change by energy?
swansont Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Distance over time will change by energy? Meaningless to me.
Relative Posted October 1, 2014 Author Posted October 1, 2014 Meaningless to me. I was trying to make a simple formula that says in a period of time, by energy increase, increasing mass of either of the objects, that the distance/radius, will change between the objects .
swansont Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I was trying to make a simple formula that says in a period of time, by energy increase, increasing mass of either of the objects, that the distance/radius, will change between the objects . Then you'd want to write distance as a function of time. The actual formula that distance depends on. If you have a circular orbit, under Newtonian gravity, you have GMm/r2 = mv2/r (gravitational force is centripetal) r = GM/v2 That's the distance you should have. M (and possibly v) are varying with time. The question is by how much? The sun converts about 4 million metric tons per second which is emitted as light; that's its mass loss rate. ~4 x 109 kg/s, out of an overall mass of 2 x 1030 kg. That's a fractional change of 2 x 10-21 per second. We're 150 million km away, so that's 0.3 nanometers a second. Half the size of a benzene molecule. Per second. In a year, it's a whole centimeter.
Relative Posted October 2, 2014 Author Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Then you'd want to write distance as a function of time. The actual formula that distance depends on. If you have a circular orbit, under Newtonian gravity, you have GMm/r2 = mv2/r (gravitational force is centripetal) r = GM/v2 That's the distance you should have. M (and possibly v) are varying with time. The question is by how much? The sun converts about 4 million metric tons per second which is emitted as light; that's its mass loss rate. ~4 x 109 kg/s, out of an overall mass of 2 x 1030 kg. That's a fractional change of 2 x 10-21 per second. We're 150 million km away, so that's 0.3 nanometers a second. Half the size of a benzene molecule. Per second. In a year, it's a whole centimeter. To be honest , to learn all the maths you write and to understand them correctly I would need tutoring, a cm is a lot on a universal scale? and over time it will be greater? And I have a new model for you, and would appreciate opinion, I have no ideas where or why I get these brain farts, but I just see it . It does fit into this thread, and adds to my ideas, I hope someone see's something, and understands me for my own mind sake. I have a feeling scientists go a bit crazy , like Einstein, because it is really annoying when no one understands you. Can you please forget what you know, and consider this model as if we were in the 17th century in Prague, and know very little. Edited October 2, 2014 by Relative
Recommended Posts