The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How important is E=mc^2  (Read 58613 times)

Offline mike03

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
How important is E=mc^2
« on: 08/04/2005 17:15:11 »
Ok, so it caused a race between scientists in the US and Germany to see who could build an atomic bomb first. It caused mass devastation in Hiroshima.  It is at the centre of lots of medical devices, it's seen in televisions and smoke alarms, and is even used to explain how stars ignite, black holes are created and how Earth will end.
But how many times does the average person come in to contact with applications applying E=mc^2? and how important do you really think it is?


 

Offline realmswalker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #1 on: 09/04/2005 07:43:31 »
smoke alarms? televisions? please explain..
heh ive always wanted to program out a program that more or less models all of the universes forces and being able to screw with em.
like e = mc/2
MWUAHAHA
thatd be interesting wouldnt it?
« Last Edit: 09/04/2005 07:44:50 by realmswalker »
 

Offline mike03

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #2 on: 09/04/2005 10:06:49 »
yeah I read a while ago in a book called E=mc^2 about how it effects smoke alarms and how the planet will end but it wasn't explained anywhere. also had a look around internet for applications of e=mc^2 and the importance of it but there seems to be amazingly little discussion of these topics. :(Javascript:insertsmilie(':(')
 

Offline mike03

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #3 on: 09/04/2005 10:07:49 »
yeah I read a while ago in a book called E=mc^2 about how it effects smoke alarms and how the planet will end but it wasn't explained anywhere. also had a look around internet for applications of e=mc^2 and the importance of it but there seems to be amazingly little discussion of these topics. :(
 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #4 on: 09/04/2005 11:15:27 »
Look around you, if it wasn't for the fusion inside the Sun (mass converted to energy) there would be little energy available on Earth for life to exist... without life there are no smoke detectors ;)

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #5 on: 09/04/2005 13:16:59 »
I think the way smoke alarms work is by using a radioactive element (I think Americanium is common) which gives out ionising radiation, this ionises air in a chamber. If there is smoke in the air it soaks up the ions (or gets in their way). Ionised air has a reduced resistance so you can detect the amount of smoke my measuring the resistance of the air.

I guess the arguement is that you can detect the energy released in radioactive decays by measuring the weight of the origianl atom and the products, so it is related to E=mc^2

If you generalise the question to relativity rather than just E=mc^2 magnetism is a consequence of relativity, and that is used quite a lot!
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #6 on: 11/04/2005 17:44:39 »
The dual ionization-chamber smoke detector contains two chambers that are both ionized by the presence of .098 microcuries of Am-241. The use of two chambers cancels out the effects of weather, temperature, aging, and any other slow changing parameters that would cause the ionization to shift in the chambers. One chamber is vented, and samples the air. The other chamber has only a very small vent, and does not respond to rapid changes in the air. When a fire releases ionized particles into the air, the sampling chamber picks this up, and its ionization increases compared to the reference chamber. An electronic circuit detects this difference and triggers the alarm.

E=mc^2 is not obviously a part of all this, but I'm sure it's there somewhere. Surely radioactive decay involves relativistic effects, and physicists use this all the time, but the chamber does not measure the radioactive decay directly. The ionization could be provided by high voltage, for instance. Am-241 is just a lot less expensive ion source.
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #7 on: 11/04/2005 23:43:29 »
Having two chambers does help to reduce false alarms, but I am pretty sure that the smoke is inhibiting the ionisation produced by the radioactive source rather than the ionisation chamber detecting ions from the fire. There wouldn't really be any point in putting in a radioactive source if you are just detecting the ions form the fire.

There is a really good write up about ionising smoke detectors here:
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-07-23/feature1/
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #8 on: 12/04/2005 17:40:53 »
Duh, that's what it says. The combustion products from the fire provide recombination sites for the ions in the chamber, although the referenced article does not say that.
 

Offline Sandwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #9 on: 17/04/2005 22:32:46 »
Not important in daily life at all,

Do I need to ponder the fact that a kilo/litre of water is equivilant to 9*10^15 N or a gram 9*10^12 N

N = Newton = Unit of force = 1m/s^2

http://www.answers.com/newton&r=67

Thats a lot of energy, that I cant get to!
« Last Edit: 17/04/2005 22:37:27 by Sandwalker »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #10 on: 04/05/2005 10:35:39 »
E=MC^2 will matter when matter reaches its ultimate mass. When one realises that planets are not gradually cooling down and are in fact gradually heating up as they attract more and more Mass from space, they will eventually all become either a sun or part of another larger mass.
When the oceans connect with the earths core in significant amounts, then the true realisation of E=MC^2 will be released as the energy from more than a litre of water will be released, but I doubt if any of us will be around to witness it :)More likely we will witness the ignition of many more stars in the far flung corners of space. Jupiter should be an interesting event as it reaches critical mass, long before the Earth eventually reaches its true destiny and becomes yet another sun, viewed by people having this same discussion on another distant planet. This is precisely why volcanoes are active, and earthquakes appear to be as frequent or possibly significantly more frequent as they have ever been.

There was no massive explosion that gave birth to the earth, and it is definitely not cooling down at its core!


Andrew K Fletcher

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #11 on: 04/05/2005 21:23:20 »
I am not an expert at this kind of stuff and you may be.... but I really disagree with what you have just said. I mean how could the earth become a 'sun' (I prefer to call it a 'star')? There is no way we could heat up enough for that. Also The planet would have to create a HUGE amount of explosive gas for this to happen wouldn't it?


Simon
Trust me I am a doctor!
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #12 on: 04/05/2005 21:59:26 »
The heat we are talking about here is different from the global warming type of heat. Itís the core reaction we are dealing with. For every action there has to be an opposing reaction! And the Earth or any other planet does not escape this law of physics! You simply cannot have gravity pulling in one direction without an equally opposing pushing force! This is where the heat is generated at the core, due to the fact that all of the atoms that make the earth are lined up in the same way that magnets attract each other. I.E opposites attract. This is what is generating the pull from the mass that we have named gravity. The atoms are lined up so that they are pushing against all of the other atoms on the opposite side of the planet. As the Earth gets bigger, there is an inevitable increase in the pushing force = to the attracting force. This is the fuel for the Earths core, generating more and more heat due to the friction caused by the immense crushing force of the sum total of the plantís atomic mass.

When the oceans meet with the earthís core, there will be an abundance of oxygen and hydrogen as the water reacts with the core.

Which brings us back to the amount of atomic energy available from a single litre of water. E=MC^2



"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #13 on: 05/05/2005 10:20:10 »
Hmmm are you sure about all that? And do you mean that the more weight the earth takes in (like from meteorites etc) the hotter it becomes?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2009 14:37:36 by BenV »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #14 on: 05/05/2005 18:11:40 »
Very sure yes! Just like you and I, and every other living species on this planet, and every other planet has an ultimate expiry date on it. The greater the mass, the more friction and resulting reaction from the core. It is erroneous of the first degree to presume that a planet can only attract. For every action there must be an opposing reaction! Any increase in mass will lead to an increase in both the pulling force and the pushing force at the core.

If you doubt that planets are growing and favour the cooling down stabilising theory. Then ask yourself why is Jupiter stripping away the surface of one of its moons?

Recently, scientists have found evidence for a new ring of dust in a backward orbit around Jupiter, based on computer simulations and data collected by a dust detector aboard the Galileo spacecraft. A faint, doughnut-shaped ring of interplanetary and interstellar dust some 1,126,000 kilometers in diameter (about 700,000 miles) appears to be orbiting the giant planet. The reason for the backward orbit of the tiny particles is not known. http://www.kidscosmos.org/kid-stuff/jupiter-facts.html

Jupiter Stats:

Metric: 1,898,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg Scientific Notation: 1.8987 x 1027 kg By Comparison: 317.82 x Earth Metric: 20.87 m/s2 English: 68.48 ft/s2 By Comparison: If you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, you would weigh 214 pounds on Jupiter.

Jupiter: Moons: Io

Looking like a giant pizza covered with melted cheese and splotches of tomato and ripe olives, Io is the most volcanically active body in the solar system. Volcanic plumes rise 300 kilometers (190 miles) above the surface, with material spewing out at nearly half the required escape velocity.

A bit larger than Earth's moon, Io is the third largest of Jupiter's moons, and the fifth one in distance from the planet.

Although Io always points the same side toward Jupiter in its orbit around the giant planet, the large moons Europa and Ganymede perturb Io's orbit into an irregularly elliptical one. Thus, in its widely varying distances from Jupiter, Io is subjected to tremendous tidal forces. These forces cause Io's surface to bulge up and down (or in and out) by as much as 100 meters (330 feet)! Compare these tides on Io's solid surface to the tides on Earth's oceans. On Earth, in the place where tides are highest, the difference between low and high tides is only 18 meters (60 feet), and this is for water, not solid ground!

This tidal pumping generates a tremendous amount of heat within Io, keeping much of its subsurface crust in liquid form, seeking any available escape route to the surface to relieve the pressure. Thus, the surface of Io is constantly renewing itself, filling in any impact craters with molten lava lakes and spreading smooth new floodplains of liquid rock. The composition of this material is not yet entirely clear, but theories suggest that it is largely molten sulfur and its compounds (which would account for the varigated coloring) or silicate rock (which would better account for the apparent temperatures, which may be too hot to be sulfur). Sulfur dioxide is the primary constituent of a thin atmosphere on Io. It has no water to speak of, unlike the other, colder Galilean moons. Data from the Galileo spacecraft indicates that an iron core may form Io's center, thus giving Io its own magnetic field.


Io's orbit, keeping it at more or less a cozy 422,000 kilometers (262,000 miles) from Jupiter, cuts across the planet's powerful magnetic lines of force, thus turning Io into a electric generator. Io can develop 400,000 volts across itself and create an electric current of 3 million amperes. This current takes the path of least resistance along Jupiter's magnetic field lines to the planet's surface, creating lightning in Jupiter's upper atmosphere.

As Jupiter rotates, it takes its magnetic field around with it, sweeping past Io and stripping off about 1,000 kilograms (1 ton) of Io's material every second! This material becomes ionized in the magnetic field and forms a doughnut-shaped cloud of intense radiation referred to as a plasma torus. Some of the ions are pulled into Jupiter's atmosphere along the magnetic lines of force and create auroras in the planet's upper atmosphere. It is the ions escaping from this torus that inflate Jupiter's magnetosphere to over twice the size we would expect.

Credit to: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Io


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #15 on: 05/05/2005 21:47:34 »
wow that is a long post! some of it seems kind of irelevent to what we were discussing though lolz
I never knew that the more weight the earth takes in the hotter it becomes. Well if there is a problem to do with that happening (us becoming too heavy) then instead of burying all of our rubbish in rubbish tips why don't we send it off into space?

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #16 on: 05/05/2005 22:02:07 »
Andrew

You keep using every action has an equal and opposite reaction with wild abandon what it means is:
"If fred applies a force to Jill, then Jill must be applying an equal and opposite force to Fred." period, no extensions!
This means that if the earth pulls the moon then the moon must pull the Earth too, this means that as the moon orbits the earth goes in little circles too.

  You are correct that if you stand on the earth and you are not accelerating downwards the reaction force is the same as the force you are pushing down with, BUT THIS IS NOT DUE TO GRAVITY, the substance that the floor is made of acts like an increadibly strong spring and as your weight bends it a bit it will push back, if you wait a bit friction will reduce any vibrations and the floor will push up with the same force as you are pushing down with.

  If you compress something it will heat up a bit - hence why a bicycle pump gets hot when you pump it, the amount of heat energy it gains is at most the amount of work you did compressing it. But it will not continue to heat up due to some kind of mystical friction as there is nowhere for the energy to come from...

  The earth did heat up considerably while it was forming due to meteorite impacts - but this was not to do with weight or friction, but because the meteorites were going very fast and therefore when they hit the ground they released a huge amount of energy. Some of this heat is still left over as the earth is a big thing and takes a long time to cool down. I remember vaguely that it has been calculated that very roughly the heat coming out of the earth is 50% residual heat and 50% heat from nuclear decay.

However now there are hardly any meteorite impacts as 99% of the original small objects in the solar system have already hit something, so the earth gets far more energy from the sun than it does from impacts. The earth is not heating up much because it looses roughly all this energy as infra red radiation into space.

I think you are getting confused with how stars form which is indeed from a disk of material which essentially heats up due to compression and impacts eventually enough for hydrogen to fuse and it ignites forming a star. This hoowever requires very different conditions to the earth experiences now

1. A disk of material with a mass that is a good fraction of the sun's which there isn't

2. This disk to be made up of mainly hydrogen to fuse which is now blown away by the solar wind

3. In order to even start fusing a body has to be around 80 times the mass of Jupiter - and it is going to take a looooooooooong time for a few comet impacts to increase jupiter's mass that much.

I am not quite sure what the Io reference is supposed to proove but even if Jupiter collected the whole of Io Jupiter is 21000 times more massive so it ain't going to make much difference.

Andrew, scientists are by no means allways right, but if you are going to proove them wrong it would help to understand what their theories are, and it is vital to know what evidence they have collected that your theory will have to explain. To do this will require looking at books of a considerably higher level than GCSE, and the web although in parts very good, is not always very accurate.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #17 on: 05/05/2005 22:07:18 »
And neither are the books!

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #18 on: 05/05/2005 22:47:31 »
Ok I will rephrase that - not a very good representation of current scientific thinking if that is what you mean.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #19 on: 06/05/2005 11:16:02 »
Andrew

 
quote:
You keep using every action has an equal and opposite reaction with wild abandon what it means is:
"If fred applies a force to Jill, then Jill must be applying an equal and opposite force to Fred." period, no extensions!
This means that if the earth pulls the moon then the moon must pull the Earth too, this means that as the moon orbits the earth goes in little circles too.


And if Fred is the pulling force, Jill is the repelling force and Gravity is both!

 
quote:
You are correct that if you stand on the earth and you are not accelerating downwards the reaction force is the same as the force you are pushing down with, BUT THIS IS NOT DUE TO GRAVITY, the substance that the floor is made of acts like an increadibly strong spring and as your weight bends it a bit it will push back, if you wait a bit friction will reduce any vibrations and the floor will push up with the same force as you are pushing down with.

If you compress something it will heat up a bit - hence why a bicycle pump gets hot when you pump it, the amount of heat energy it gains is at most the amount of work you did compressing it. But it will not continue to heat up due to some kind of mystical friction as there is nowhere for the energy to come from...


I disagree with this statement completely. It is ludicrous to believe that Gravity can only attract. The forces of gravity are after all the collective pull of every atom and sub-atomic particle that makes up the Earth! But to believe that you can have an attractive force without a pushing force is illogical.

Mystical friction as you put it is currently ripping Io to bits. If you were to do a data search on high tides, due to the effects of the position of the moon and planets, you would find a staggering correlation with volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes. Following the Eclipse, I will always remember the Awe inspiring event. Shortly after it I said to my friends. There is going to be a massive Earthquake within a few days!

Now it might have been a coincidence, But Turkey suffered a massive Earthquake shortly after the eclipse.

 
quote:
The earth did heat up considerably while it was forming due to meteorite impacts - but this was not to do with weight or friction, but because the meteorites were going very fast and therefore when they hit the ground they released a huge amount of energy. Some of this heat is still left over as the earth is a big thing and takes a long time to cool down. I remember vaguely that it has been calculated that very roughly the heat coming out of the earth is 50% residual heat and 50% heat from nuclear decay.


The Earth did not heat up at all while it was forming. The process was a stable uneventful collection of atoms, formed from the decay of suns and matter thrown up due to impacts, throughout the Universe. Suns are planets that have reached critical mass!

I believe the Earth has an incalculable age, stretching back way beyond our current limited knowledge.

 
quote:
However now there are hardly any meteorite impacts as 99% of the original small objects in the solar system have already hit something, so the earth gets far more energy from the sun than it does from impacts. The earth is not heating up much because it looses roughly all this energy as infrared radiation into space.


The Earth continues to attract a massive amount of atoms and nothing will prevent its insatiable appetite for growth. The aurora Borealis and meteorites scattered in the deserts is evidence of this. To believe that the Earth is not hovering up her surrounding materials from space again is an illogical argument, when each and every day it attracts a massive amount of material. Admittedly, Jupiter is more successful at hovering the Universe than the Earth is because it has a greater Gravitational Pull! As seen by the huge meteorites that were recently viewed hitting its surface.


 
quote:
I think you are getting confused with how stars form which is indeed from a disk of material which essentially heats up due to compression and impacts eventually enough for hydrogen to fuse and it ignites forming a star. This hoowever requires very different conditions to the earth experiences now


I think you are confused, if not contaminated by what you have read in the literature.

 
quote:
1. A disk of material with a mass that is a good fraction of the sun's which there isn't

2. This disk to be made up of mainly hydrogen to fuse which is now blown away by the solar wind

3. In order to even start fusing a body has to be around 80 times the mass of Jupiter - and it is going to take a looooooooooong time for a few comet impacts to increase jupiter's mass that much.


Dave, Jupiter has all the time in the universe!


 
quote:
I am not quite sure what the Io reference is supposed to proove but even if Jupiter collected the whole of Io Jupiter is 21000 times more massive so it ain't going to make much difference.


So you did realise the significance of Io donating itís mass to Jupiter!

 
quote:
Andrew, scientists are by no means allways right, but if you are going to proove them wrong it would help to understand what their theories are, and it is vital to know what evidence they have collected that your theory will have to explain. To do this will require looking at books of a considerably higher level than GCSE, and the web although in parts very good, is not always very accurate.


Why do you keep relating to the GCSE books? Do you honestly believe that their content is the sum of my knowledge? The Web is a massive source of the most up-to-date information on a massive amount of subjects. The Web represents Freedom of thought in the real World, and Scientists are generally considered right only until they are proven to be wrong.


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #20 on: 06/05/2005 13:21:07 »
quote:
And if Fred is the pulling force, Jill is the repelling force and Gravity is both!

Think about what I said  - if A pulls B abd B pulls A - they are both attracting!

quote:
I disagree with this statement completely. It is ludicrous to believe that Gravity can only attract. The forces of gravity are after all the collective pull of every atom and sub-atomic particle that makes up the Earth! But to believe that you can have an attractive force without a pushing force is illogical.


It may be ludicrous but it seems to be the way the universe works. What evidence do you have that Gravity can repell?  The only way you could possibly interpret gravity as repelling is the cosmological constant - but this is very controversial, and is only significant on scales of the universe, not the earth.

Gravity is only one of four forces one of the others of which (usually electromagnetic) provides the pushes.

Tidal effects will warm up a planet or moon, but that requires there to be something for them to act upon. In Io's case a combination of tidal effects and the radiation belts around jupiter are causing some evaporation of material.

 However the energy is coming from the rotation of the planet/moon. If Io dumped all of it's rotational energy into heat today the surface of Io would slow from about 43ms-1 to 0  which would release about 1kJ/kg of kinetic energy this is probably about enough to warm it up by roughly 1degree celcius. I assume that the heating effects are either localised or Io used to be spinning much much faster so the heat dumped in slowing down was significant and Io is still loosing this heat. The earth is bigger and spinning a bit faster so a point on the equator is moving at about 100m/s so this could release about 10kJ/kg which would be enough to warm it up by about 10celcius and this energy will be released over billions of years.

quote:
I believe the Earth has an incalculable age, stretching back way beyond our current limited knowledge.


Ok that is nice, but what is your evidence?

quote:
Dave, Jupiter has all the time in the universe!

Andrew if there is far less matter kicking around the solar system than the mass of the earth let alone Jupiter, however long you wait it will not gain much mass,,


quote:
Why do you keep relating to the GCSE books?

Because you are not taking into account many pieces of evidence that are in A-level books let alone anything more sophisticated.

If you have a hypothesis you have to check several things:

Does it explain your evidence qualititively?
Does it explain your evidence quantatively?
Is energy conserved?
Does it obey the second law of thermodynamics?

If any of the above answers are no you have to look very carefully at the hypothesis!

quote:
Scientists are generally considered right only until they are proven to be wrong.


Scientists are only right until they are prooved wrong, however if you want to come up with an alternative hypothesis, it will have to explain the evidence that has already been collected. Just saying that other hypothesies are ridiculous will not get you any respect.

Unfortunately I do not have time to turn this into another tree thread, but if you have any questions about the present understanding I will do my best to answer them.
 

Offline moth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #21 on: 06/05/2005 15:01:29 »
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher, quoting Daveshorts

Andrew

And if Fred is the pulling force, Jill is the repelling force and Gravity is both!



No. Third Law pairs don't work that way, they are always equal and opposite and act on separate bodies. You can't pair up an attraction of one body with a repulsion of the other - both forces would be in the same direction and cause the bodies to accelerate away, magically creating energy.
quote:

I disagree with this statement completely. It is ludicrous to believe that Gravity can only attract. The forces of gravity are after all the collective pull of every atom and sub-atomic particle that makes up the Earth! But to believe that you can have an attractive force without a pushing force is illogical.


By what logic? From what established principle does this follow? It certainly isn't in violation of Newton's Third Law.
quote:


Mystical friction as you put it is currently ripping Io to bits. If you were to do a data search on high tides, due to the effects of the position of the moon and planets, you would find a staggering correlation with volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes. Following the Eclipse, I will always remember the Awe inspiring event. Shortly after it I said to my friends. There is going to be a massive Earthquake within a few days!


A tidal correlation with earthquakes is plausible (and google provides arguments both ways), but in tidal terms there is nothing particularly special about an eclipse.
quote:

The Earth did not heat up at all while it was forming.


This is completely contrary to the way the universe is currently observed to behave.
quote:

I believe the Earth has an incalculable age, stretching back way beyond our current limited knowledge.


Do you have any evidence to support this belief? The currently accepted figure of around 4.5 billion years is sufficient to account for the observed isotope ratios. Why assume more? Why not "Keep it simple!", because as you say isn't "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."?
quote:

The Earth continues to attract a massive amount of atoms and nothing will prevent its insatiable appetite for growth. The aurora Borealis and meteorites scattered in the deserts is evidence of this. To believe that the Earth is not hovering up her surrounding materials from space again is an illogical argument, when each and every day it attracts a massive amount of material.


This is a tiny ammount of mass in comparison to the earth. I doubt it is even enough to compensate for the mass-loss due to nuclear fusion in the core and mantle. (Woo! back on topic!)
quote:


Admittedly, Jupiter is more successful at hovering the Universe than the Earth is because it has a greater Gravitational Pull! As seen by the huge meteorites that were recently viewed hitting its surface.

quote:
I think you are getting confused with how stars form which is indeed from a disk of material which essentially heats up due to compression and impacts eventually enough for hydrogen to fuse and it ignites forming a star. This hoowever requires very different conditions to the earth experiences now


I think you are confused, if not contaminated by what you have read in the literature.


Tainted by reading too many careful observations of reality?
quote:


quote:
In order to even start fusing a body has to be around 80 times the mass of Jupiter - and it is going to take a looooooooooong time for a few comet impacts to increase jupiter's mass that much.

Dave, Jupiter has all the time in the universe!


Nah, only 10^14 years or so, and most of the local hydrogen is already taken. newbielink:http://www.answers.com/topic/timeline-of-the-universe [nonactive]
quote:

quote:
I am not quite sure what the Io reference is supposed to proove but even if Jupiter collected the whole of Io Jupiter is 21000 times more massive so it ain't going to make much difference.


So you did realise the significance of Io donating itís mass to Jupiter!

The insignificance, more like.
quote:

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"


Yes, please do, so long as you take care to account for the observed evidence.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #22 on: 06/05/2005 17:01:10 »
Thanks Moth, loved your post.

quote:
 
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher, quoting Daveshorts

Andrew

And if Fred is the pulling force, Jill is the repelling force and Gravity is both!


 
quote:
No. Third Law pairs don't work that way, they are always equal and opposite and act on separate bodies. You can't pair up an attraction of one body with a repulsion of the other - both forces would be in the same direction and cause the bodies to accelerate away, magically creating energy.


No. Did I say third law pairs anywhere? I have detailed the very principles laid out in your statement above in earlier posts, stating that gravity simply cannot be just a pulling force. If it were it would be in direct contradiction of logic. I have continually stated that the alignment of every single atomic particle is uniform on this and every other planet. The pulling force is a direct result of the alignment of the forces of the mass, all pulling and all pushing. The pushing force is counterbalanced by equal opposing pushing forces from the opposite side of the planet. All of this positive force is causing friction sufficient to maintain a molten core.



I disagree with this statement completely. It is ludicrous to believe that Gravity can only attract. The forces of gravity are after all the collective pull of every atom and sub-atomic particle that makes up the Earth! But to believe that you can have an attractive force without a pushing force is illogical.
 
 
quote:
By what logic? From what established principle does this follow? It certainly isn't in violation of Newton's Third Law.


Why does it have to follow from any established principle? You still believe the Earth is cooling down right?



Mystical friction as you put it is currently ripping Io to bits. If you were to do a data search on high tides, due to the effects of the position of the moon and planets, you would find a staggering correlation with volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes. Following the Eclipse, I will always remember the Awe inspiring event. Shortly after it I said to my friends. There is going to be a massive Earthquake within a few days!
 

 
quote:
A tidal correlation with earthquakes is plausible (and google provides arguments both ways), but in tidal terms there is nothing particularly special about an eclipse.


Well. We all heard that the tides were affected more strongly when the Eclipse occurred here in the UK. Water levels were much lower, meaning that the effects of the alignment of the planets was indeed pulling significantly more water from one coast to another. So what was happening to the Earths molten core during the same exchange of opposing forces?


The Earth did not heat up at all while it was forming.
 

 
quote:
This is completely contrary to the way the universe is currently observed to behave.


Please, you really do mean the way the universe is currently perceived to behave surely?

Do you truly and honestly believe that the current literature encompasses all that is out there? This would involve a grand unified field theory, and I have no knowledge of one ever being published that explains everything.


 

I believe the Earth has an incalculable age, stretching back way beyond our current limited knowledge.
 

 
quote:
Do you have any evidence to support this belief? The currently accepted figure of around 4.5 billion years is sufficient to account for the observed isotope ratios. Why assume more? Why not "Keep it simple!", because as you say isn't "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."?



Well actually carbon dating is unreliable to start with, and where do you examine the rocks, on the Earthís Surface perhaps? My theory does not rely on the age of the surface material. It relies on the age of the first atoms that became a solid, and over eons developed slowly into a planet, give or take a few meteors to speed up the growth as the gravitational force of the planet became strong enough to attract larger objects from space.


 

The Earth continues to attract a massive amount of atoms and nothing will prevent its insatiable appetite for growth. The aurora Borealis and meteorites scattered in the deserts is evidence of this. To believe that the Earth is not hovering up her surrounding materials from space again is an illogical argument, when each and every day it attracts a massive amount of material.
 

 
quote:
This is a tiny ammount of mass in comparison to the earth. I doubt it is even enough to compensate for the mass-loss due to nuclear fusion in the core and mantle. (Woo! back on topic!)


In relative terms it may be a tiny amount of mass, but mass it is nevertheless. Now I doubt there is any significant decay/loss of the planet into space, due to the effects of gravity, if any. You have just agreed that there is an inevitable increase in mass, albeit small. Net result: Earth growing at a steady rate over eons of years. Sounds fairly logical to me!




 


Admittedly, Jupiter is more successful at hovering the Universe than the Earth is because it has a greater Gravitational Pull! As seen by the huge meteorites that were recently viewed hitting its surface.


 
 
quote:
I think you are getting confused with how stars form which is indeed from a disk of material which essentially heats up due to compression and impacts eventually enough for hydrogen to fuse and it ignites forming a star. This hoowever requires very different conditions to the earth experiences now

 


I think you are confused, if not contaminated by what you have read in the literature.
 

 
quote:
Tainted by reading too many careful observations of reality?


Tainted by reading too many people interpretations of the evidence before them is what is meant by the above remark.




 
quote:
In order to even start fusing a body has to be around 80 times the mass of Jupiter - and it is going to take a looooooooooong time for a few comet impacts to increase jupiter's mass that much.


Funny that when all around us are planets much smaller than the far flung have a guess figure that someone scribed on paper.  and much less reactive, save for Io, which is having its surface eroded by Jupiter



 
quote:
The insignificance, more like.


I never said insignificant!






"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #23 on: 06/05/2005 20:25:23 »
quote:
No. Did I say third law pairs anywhere?

You said every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if that isn't a quote form newton's third law what is it???


quote:
I have detailed the very principles laid out in your statement above in earlier posts, stating that gravity simply cannot be just a pulling force. If it were it would be in direct contradiction of logic.


In what way?


quote:
I have continually stated that the alignment of every single atomic particle is uniform on this and every other planet. The pulling force is a direct result of the alignment of the forces of the mass, all pulling and all pushing. The pushing force is counterbalanced by equal opposing pushing forces from the opposite side of the planet. All of this positive force is causing friction sufficient to maintain a molten core.


You may have done, but what is the evidence? Can you get two uncharged objects to push each other in a vacuum? Could you come up with any other experiments that would distinguish your theory from newtonian/einsteinian gravity?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #24 on: 07/05/2005 09:46:07 »
Dave if I did would you or anyone else accept them?

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How important is E=mc^2
« Reply #24 on: 07/05/2005 09:46:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length