The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity pressure  (Read 17716 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #25 on: 14/02/2008 23:46:37 »
Surely this is why most asteroids 'tumble' as they move in their orbits?

I wouldn't think that has anything to do with it.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #26 on: 15/02/2008 13:09:36 »
Surely this is why most asteroids 'tumble' as they move in their orbits?
It would, indeed, be a rare occurence for an object in space not to 'tumble'. It would, quite randomly, need to have zero angular momentum; one glancing impact with a speck of dust would start it tumbling by a small amount.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #27 on: 15/02/2008 16:38:57 »
John Lisk you do not need to be apologetic and I am quite happy to explain things as long as I can understand the question or comment.  However one of the frequent causes of arguments and misunderstanding is lack of clarity or leaping to unjustified conclusions in thinking through a question by someone with a limited knowledge.  for example  you say 

"Now we have this resource, this shall we call it pool of quantum particles which if the bang theory is correct have been subjected to a , shall we call it a pressure wave which has, let us say caused sufficient excitement to make a release of  intrinsic energy, or perhaps an absorption of energy which initiates a change of state."

The nature and characteristics of the particles you are talking about is undefined. 

The big bang was not a pressure wave passing through existing space like an explosion in air creating a shock wave but a total expansion of space time and energy itself.

You talk of a release of intrinsic energy (what is this?) and are not sure about an absorption of energy.  initiating a change of state.

Your question cannot be answered because it is not defined.

You seem to be interested in states of matter.

Let us first run through these starting with cool things like we have on earth and gradually getting hotter  looking back towards the "big bang" from what we have now.

If you compress anything it gets hotter.

Matter consits of atoms which consist of a very small dense nucleus that is positively charged surrounded by a fog of electrons that are negatively charged and in general is electrostatically neutral most atoms when they are cold bond lightly and rigidly together to form solids  as they warm up the agitation of the atoms which is what temperature is gets greater and they melt to form liquids which can flow but still hold together.

Eventually as energy is put into the atoms and they move about more vigorously the liquids evaporate to form gases.  some atoms can still stay bonded to gether in simple compounds like water forming steam up to quite high temperatures but by the time you have reached about 3-4000 degrees C  everthing has turned into gas and no compounds can hold together. 

As you get things hotter even the electrons get knocked off the atoms and fly around independently forming what is called a plasma.

Eventually once you get up to about a million degrees it is just a lot of bare nuclei and lots of electrons flying about

If you get hotter still even the nuclei start to break down  there is a range of temperatures where simple nuclei can be fused to create more complex nuclei. (this happens in the centre of stars) but if you make things much hotter than this the complex nuclei will be broken down into their component parts and revert to protons neutrons and electrons.  This is the sort of process that happens in medium energy collision experiments  and happens at temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees. 

Go hotter still and you find that the protons and neutrons start to break down into their constituent quarks but as these are joined together by extremely strong forces unless the pressure is very great you create loads of new particles from the energy  effectively creating lots of new matter  you are now looking  at temperatures of billions of degrees right back towards the beginning of the big bang  under those conditions our whole observable universe was probably only a few feet across.  These are the sort of conditions that can be simulated in the biggest particle accelerators on earth. 

Beyond that it is a mystery but theories exist as to what our universe was like when it was only the size of a single atomic nucleus but that is still nothing like as small as the singularity inside a black hole is expected to be.

This process can of course be reversed and we see our universe evolving from a tiny extremely hot dense state to a vast volume filled with galaxies stars and planets that we have today.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #28 on: 15/02/2008 18:10:27 »
Quote
by the time you have reached about 3-4000 degrees C  everthing has turned into gas and no compounds can hold together.

Are there, then, no compound gases?

Quote
Go hotter still and you find that the protons and neutrons start to break down into their constituent quarks but as these are joined together by extremely strong forces unless the pressure is very great you create loads of new particles from the energy  effectively creating lots of new matter

Would these be the heavier flavours of particles (such as the muon)?
« Last Edit: 15/02/2008 18:14:22 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #29 on: 16/02/2008 10:01:08 »
Now you are starting to get a bit silly.  This is a science website that is mainly concerned with what we can see detect measure and infer.  What you personally believe in may be important to you but could be totally irrelevant.  This part of the universe is most definitely finite because of the limited velocity of light and the time needed for things to happen.  It also contains things that we can reliably detect and measure that behave according to consistant physical laws.  It also contains precisely defined amounts of uncertainty

As you put it we are mainly concerned with the bricks and mortar of things and this is what we are taking about in this topic area.  If you want to do "Vivaldi" you should go to the new theories area and set out your thoughts in a clear, understandable and logical way and we will be able to comment on them in the correct context.  However I will reiterate that this is a science website and unless you can put your ideas in a way that is measurable modellable and ends up with things that relate to our observable universe you are in the wrong website.

I am particularly interested in the things in this universe that are  "metaphysics"  in the original context of the word as being things "beyond physics".  These are the "laws" that will pertain to an evolving (changing with time)universe whatever the physical laws might be and am quite happy to discuss them there.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #30 on: 16/02/2008 11:04:54 »
The answer could also be 22  if you re being more conventional and using decimal notation  11 + 11  =  22  we have to agree our symboligy before we can understand each other.

The rest of your reply is just wrong. An object travelling faster experiences time more slowly.  photons at the speed of light do not experience time at all.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #31 on: 16/02/2008 14:38:56 »
JohnLisk, I think that you are determined to make up your own Physics from scratch. You are welcome to try but you will need to MEASURE things in order to verify your model. Otherwise you might as well say the Moon is made of green cheese.
If you haven't the time to read any of the recognised texts then I suggest you investigate another, 'softer' Science.
The ideas that you seem to be challenging have been based on a lot of solid ground. Without it, there would be no point in studying Science.
For instance, where do you get the belief about 'infinite space'? What data do you have? Read about the development of models of the Universe from Ptolemy to Copernicus and on to Hawkin. It is fascinating and will give you an idea about Physics actually works.
There is no need to bring Psychology into this. Just be a bit humble about a wide and very difficult subject. I wish I could say I understand more of it, myself.
« Last Edit: 16/02/2008 14:40:46 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #32 on: 16/02/2008 15:35:05 »
I have I hope at no time been uncivil.  My post before last was just a simple statement of the bounds of this topic area.   I had to complete my last post quickly before I left my computer for a while to do other things.

Your ideas of time and mass are fundamentally wrong if you are talking about the universe that we are living in. you seem to think that energy is a cosmic accelerator  This is not so, I have already mentioned time goes slower as you go faster it also goes slower as you go down a gravitational well and get nearer to a large massive object.  These facts have to be allowed for in the Global positioning system that tells you where to turn in your car.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #33 on: 16/02/2008 18:53:18 »
Newton believed that gravity was infinite as did Einstein, for something to be infinite it has to exist within an infinite space. I believe in certain things but I do not place faith in them as Faith is the province of religion and requires unquestioning belief, I question everything.
As far as I am aware, the current ideas are that the Universe is finite.
Newton's ideas were discredited by the resolution of the Olbers Paradox.
The Big Bang seems a pretty solid idea (based on some good old measurement, remember).
If Space is 'the bits in between stuff' then it must be part of the Universe so I do not see why / how it can  or needs to be infinite.
I think you are in a minority in your view. What are your actual grounds for this opinion (I would be interested to know your resources)?

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #34 on: 16/02/2008 20:46:32 »
Psychologist? erm... guilty  [:I]
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #35 on: 16/02/2008 21:13:15 »
I've already served my sentence  :D
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #36 on: 16/02/2008 22:21:59 »
Precisely what do you mean by the expression gravity is infinite?  The range of the gravitational force may in theory be infinite but that does not imply that it has to have infinite space to act.

You are also a fraud because you claim no real knowledge or understanding of physics and quote a lot from the work of significant physicists.

The concept of "the observer" in quantum mechanical experiments is one of the most misunderstood things in the whole of science.  Recent work integrates this aspect totally with the event being observed and gets rid of a lot of the paradoxes and anomalies although it is by no means fully accepted yet.
« Last Edit: 16/02/2008 22:26:41 by Soul Surfer »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #37 on: 16/02/2008 23:27:06 »
Quote
No I will revise this,
gravity exists as a point of Zero potential and any mass will fall towards this point,
If you want to use terms like potential then use them correctly.
Potential at a point is defined as the work done to bring a unit Mass (in this case) from an infinite distance to that point. For an attractive force, this means that the potential is always less than zero.
The word 'fraud' is very apt, here.
To call oneself a Philosopher is very pretentious when one takes no notice of the knowledge of others. A Philosopher is one of the most humble of scholars. I detect no humility.
Enjoy your time distortion.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #38 on: 16/02/2008 23:44:09 »
Milton H. Erickson? Oh yes, we know all about him and his so-called time distortion techniques.

Unfortunately for Mr Erickson, Einstein got there first with that 1 ("Put your hand in icy water for 5 minutes and it seems like an hour, yet 1 hour in the company of a charming lady can seem like 5 minutes. That's relativity.")

I've often thought it a shame that such a brilliant mind could be so - how shall we say? - befuddled? Tangential? Or how about just plain WRONG!

I will not argue that Erickson's contribution to psychology should not be underestimated, but much of his work had the ring of charlatan about it.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #39 on: 17/02/2008 00:00:05 »
Can you explain how Jungian psychology can apply to this?

As far as I can remember (it was years ago now that I studied Jung), archetypes are a "pre-conscious psychic disposition that enables a person to react in a human way."

They are elemental forces (spirits) that assist in the creation of the world (nature) and the mind.

Quite how they fit into a discussion on physics is a bit of a mystery to me.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #40 on: 17/02/2008 00:20:52 »
The Wise Old Man (aka Senex - Latin for Old Man)

I believe this archetype to be a mentor figure, oft likened to a wizard such as Merlin. He gives people a sense of who are they and what they can become. He is commonly foreign or anachronistic.

I still don't really see the connection as Senex is not supposed to be a teacher of facts.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #41 on: 17/02/2008 00:36:09 »
Maybe if you had done some learning before posting, you would not have started on the wrong foot.

You cannot make statements that fly in the face of tried and tested theories without offering a genuine and coherent basis for your assertions. By doing so, you are cocking a snook at those of us who, although we may stand accused of conservatism, stand by those tried and tested theories until they are proven invalid.

Most of us here are not research physicists at the cutting edge of knowledge, yet we await with anticipation discoveries that are on the horizon but not yet discovered. We will also listen to new theories if they are offered in a scientific way. Anyone can invent scenarios, very few can offer genuinely feasible theories.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #42 on: 17/02/2008 09:21:17 »
Your knowledge of history is somewhat limited Philosophers are rarely humble in fact the only one I can think of was Pythagoras, Philosophers are usually cantankerous and will fight at the drop of a hat, especially the Celts. Socrates by all accounts was a thoroughly annoying individual.
At the center of hollow sphere gravity will have zero potential.
Gravitational force bringing a mass from an infinite distance will have a value of zero.
Forget Time distortion Ask DB about archetypes.
1. Philosophers may be grumpy sods but they treat their subject with humility.
2. Gravitational potential is Energy not Force (do you appreciate the difference?). Perhaps if you read a textbook (too demeaning or just too much like hard work?) you would find out some basics with which to argue validly.

I see that you do not declare your age or affiliation in your profile. With arrogance like yours, you must be very young. btw, well-founded arrogance is justified.
I think I will take your advice and not reply to further posts.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #43 on: 17/02/2008 10:29:39 »
I have asked the moderators to move this topic to the new theories area which is where it truly belongs we can then discus philosophy quite happily.

JohnLisk you are behaving more like a Troll now your initial enquiries were so 'umble like Uria Heep seeking an understanding of science and I have tried to explain the conventional view in innovative ways to help you but now you just seem to wish to create arguments.  If you wish us to discuss your thoughts please state them clearly and simply and define your terms properly when you are using them in unconventional ways.  You seem to use your words a bit like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Caroll's "Alice through the looking glass" who when he used a word  "it means just what I choose  it to mean - neither more nor less"
« Last Edit: 17/02/2008 12:00:54 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #44 on: 17/02/2008 12:07:10 »
I suppose that thanks for being labrats is the best we can expect.  If your aims were really research into talk page interactions I would like to know a little about your findings and conclusions.  I have been active on pages like this ever since they were first invented including a longish spell as a moderator and have already seen it all several times over.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity pressure
« Reply #45 on: 18/02/2008 09:06:04 »
I have already read much of Erickson's work - including submissions to Nature magazine that were rejected due to their unscientific content.

Do not underestimate the erudition of castorkind  :D
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Gravity pressure
« Reply #46 on: 18/02/2008 09:33:26 »
Does that mean that most of you is a robot john?  It might explain some of the peculier reactions and character instability.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Gravity pressure
« Reply #47 on: 19/02/2008 15:12:32 »
You are saved, and so are we.
This topic seems to be turning farcical. As such, it is now locked.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity pressure
« Reply #47 on: 19/02/2008 15:12:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums