Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 31/05/2023 03:51:51
The aether originates from a nucleus to the universe. It creates a stationary/static density/temperature as a background medium. Heat, in this stationary form or its standard transferring form, is the one thing that makes everything and all other characteristics branch from. If something didn't have temperature it wouldn't exist. We probably live a great distance from the nucleus and orbit around it.
An atom's nucleus is surrounded by the same temperature density on the aether as creates the aether of the universe. When two stationary gravity fields bring two objects together it is because the field gets stronger the closer to the nucleus. So when either field's outer edge which is cooler enters the denser/hotter regions of the other's gravity field, the outer edge is compressed and this action pulls the object's together based on size.
There is a shell around the nucleus composed of electricity. Electricity is conventional heat that has been stored deep in the gravity field of the nucleus and is also static or stationary. The magnetic field extends from the electric shell around the atom. Just like the energy its made from it is a stationary field that pushes in one direction. The edge of the magnetic field equals the density temperature of the surrounding aether. When you raise the temperature of the aether with light, the magnetic field retracts back into the shell and heats up the substance. Atom's arrange from smallest to biggest in capability of increasing in temperature from the same aether temperature increase. The smallest atom hydrogen heats up the least because the amount of energy that's retracted into the shell from an increase in aether temperature is at its smallest. The area of the static magnetic field that is retracted increases as the atom increases in size, meaning less heat is required to heat up larger elements.
A good insulator slowly releases the retraction of its electric shell while a good conductor releases the retraction of its electric shell quickly. In a N type P type diode you have two conductors on one side and a conductor and an insulator on the other. This creates a one way flow for electricity. The insulator atoms in the P type material act like rocks in a river where current backs behind the resistor and then speeds up on the other side. So the push of the voltage through the P type material makes the AC current travel in one direction because of the build up of slow current on one side of the insulator, vs the other side where the current accelerates.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2023 08:33:51
Anyhoo here's an update on my aether theoryIt's not a theory, is it?
Post by: paul cotter on 31/05/2023 09:00:02
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 18:58:43
Could you propose an Experiment to test the validity of " Aether " ?
(a simple ' cando@hometest ' which doesn't require billions of dollars)
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 31/05/2023 19:53:26
Hello Trevor & welcome back!I do actually! and its not total crackpot!
Could you propose an Experiment to test the validity of " Aether " ?
(a simple ' cando@hometest ' which doesn't require billions of dollars)
"I have an exciting new experiment to test for the aether being the medium for light waves. It is similar to the famous Michelson and Morley experiment.
The experiment utilizes a Femto camera. A Femto camera takes a trillion frames per second and is capable of capturing light in slow motion as it leaves its source. The link below is a video of just that. By pausing the video where light has expanded into s sphere, one can then measure for the aether 'moving past' just as they did in the M&M experiment. If the aether is in fact the medium for light one would expect to be able to measure for the slight difference in speed along different directions in a paused image of the Femto camera.
When I measured with a ruler on the screen I did in fact find that light was travelling faster by a few mm per 25 cm in one direction over the other and that earth is travelling around 3 to 4 million mph, faster then estimated."
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2023 20:22:09
The experiment utilizes a Femto camera.It's not an experiment; it's a cartoon.
That's why it's called a "VIRTUAL femto camera."
It is not real.
And You already know that because you were already told.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128069-femto-camera-measures-for-aether-wind-and-finds-it/#comment-1220180
So, you are lying.
Stop.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/06/2023 17:37:17
The link below is a video of just that.
We've already been through this. It's not a real video of an actual event. It's a simulation made in a computer: https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2023 19:49:25
It's not a real video of an actual event. It's a simulation made in a computer:Heretic!
Nobody is allowed to question computer simulations nowadays.
I recently complained to a local government "consultation" that their new million pound cycle path not only made the road and sidewalk dangerous, but wasn't actually used by cyclists. My complaint was dismissed because their expensive consultants' computer model said it would be.
Post by: Zer0 on 04/06/2023 20:23:00
I do actually! and its not total crackpot!
Honesty is a Virtue...Appreciated!
Post by: Origin on 05/06/2023 18:48:23
Anyhoo here's an update on my aether theory.The aether theory is not forgotten, it has been discarded.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/06/2023 23:09:10
Post by: Kryptid on 06/06/2023 00:14:24
Well call it the aether or what have you, but what do you guys think of the idea of the temperature the aether retracting the magnetic field extending from the shell, back into the shell?
I think most of us would say that the aether probably doesn't exist and that its existence isn't needed to explain what we see in physics.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 06/06/2023 01:35:32
But a substance can have no color, no taste, not make a sound, but it has to have a temperature?How does something with no temperature exist? The structure of the nucleus and its innate heat that gives it a constant temperature determines qualities the substance has?Well call it the aether or what have you, but what do you guys think of the idea of the temperature the aether retracting the magnetic field extending from the shell, back into the shell?
I think most of us would say that the aether probably doesn't exist and that its existence isn't needed to explain what we see in physics.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/06/2023 05:41:23
But a substance can have no color, no taste, not make a sound, but it has to have a temperature?How does something with no temperature exist?
What substance are you talking about? My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.
The structure of the nucleus and its innate heat that gives it a constant temperature determines qualities the substance has?
Not really. The electronic structure of the atom determines most of that.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/06/2023 05:15:48
My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2023 08:33:36
You don't have a theory; you have a guess.My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
And it's wrong.
Post by: The Spoon on 07/06/2023 09:06:36
It was you who insisting there was an aether. Are you incapable of remembering what you have written or just trolling?My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/06/2023 16:54:34
My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Because you said that it involved the aether.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/06/2023 19:16:15
No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Because you said that it involved the aether.
Post by: Origin on 07/06/2023 19:37:58
I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics.OK then what is this 'it' that you call aether? It is not semantics. You are so unclear that most the time it is not clear that you are saying anything that makes sense
Post by: The Spoon on 07/06/2023 19:51:21
Pope? Your befuddled mind thinks I am head of the Catholic Church? No wonder you post gibberish.No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Because you said that it involved the aether.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/06/2023 21:16:59
No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Because you said that it involved the aether.
Words have particular definitions. If you are using a word in a way that goes against its traditional definition, you can end up causing confusion. So if what you are talking about isn't aether, then you probably shouldn't call it aether.
Post by: paul cotter on 08/06/2023 18:41:44
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 08/06/2023 22:12:20
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/06/2023 22:26:40
elements that have cube numbers like 27 and 64, and their neighboring elements, make up the magnetic compounds.Interesting idea, but wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heusler_compound
Also, we know that the magnetic properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the nucleus.
A numerologist would try to convince us that oxygen (with atomic number 8) is also magnetic but it's only paramagnetic and, of course, hydrogen (atomic number 1) isn't magnetic.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/06/2023 01:49:18
Also, we know that the magnetic properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the nucleus.I agree. The energy that makes electricity and the electric shell extends out into a magnetic field. But north and south are determined by the nucleus. I think the energy is stationary inside the shell and very hot. So the heat of electricity is a magnetic field.
The stationary heat around the nucleus I speak of creates a gravity field. It is bound to the nucleus. Electricity in the electric shell is stationary conventional transferring heat. This type of heat as said finds equilibrium with temperature and has a quality of travelling in one direction, just like a magnetic field, they are one in the same that quality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/06/2023 13:02:23
But north and south are determined by the nucleus.Nope.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/06/2023 13:03:05
The stationary heat around the nucleus I speak of creates a gravity field. It is bound to the nucleus. Electricity in the electric shell is stationary conventional transferring heat.Word salad.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/06/2023 04:36:43
No pope? anyhoo how is particles physics supposed to explain anything? The medium of nothing? where are you going with this stuff?But north and south are determined by the nucleus.Nope.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 19/06/2023 01:39:11
Mine is that fusion causes cratering of the nuclei, putting a portion of the nucleus into orbit and releasing some of its gravity field as a a wave of heat. But I bicker with myself.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/06/2023 02:44:34
So is a nuclei hot? any takers?
No (not when it is in its ground state, anyway).
obviously they are as a small amount of fusion material can produce a lot of heat? what inside the nuclei converts to heat when they bond?
The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).
Mine is that fusion causes cratering of the nuclei, putting a portion of the nucleus into orbit and releasing some of its gravity field as a a wave of heat. But I bicker with myself.
Putting a portion of the nucleus in orbit is equivalent to putting the nucleus into an excited state. This absorbs energy instead of releasing it. Gravity also has nothing to do with it.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 19/06/2023 05:34:31
The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge? It like a lot of the 'empirical' knowledge out there, backed by the insults, its a sort of offense, I wonder if someday I'll have to do something legal about that? Not to anyone here but people like that with pfft actual....you know.....power and stuff. heheh
Post by: paul cotter on 19/06/2023 07:15:36
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2023 08:54:18
Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge?Yes.
You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".
It was discarded because of empirical evidence.
So, if you are so fond of empiricism, why do you keep trying to drag the corpse back in?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/06/2023 09:58:24
Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge?To anyone who has seen a hydrogen bomb, or a star, it counts as empirical knowledge. The mass defect also produces a lot of photons, which is useful for sustaining life on this planet. We don't do a lot of fusion in the laboratory but we use the fission mass defect to generate electricity on an industrial scale.
E = mc2 isn't just a T-shirt slogan. It's the reason we exist.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/06/2023 18:28:29
The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge? It like a lot of the 'empirical' knowledge out there, backed by the insults, its a sort of offense, I wonder if someday I'll have to do something legal about that? Not to anyone here but people like that with pfft actual....you know.....power and stuff. heheh
Yes, it is empirical knowledge. It makes no sense for you to take offense at that.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 20/06/2023 02:59:46
Post by: Kryptid on 20/06/2023 07:08:02
Well i guess the naked genius powerless troll friends have spoken!
What is that supposed to mean?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2023 07:59:18
Well i guess the naked genius powerless troll friends have spoken! The big CS wheel of money beats soul every time. Every GD time.You talk about money as if we are getting paid for this.
Would you like to think that through again?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/06/2023 11:55:39
What is that supposed to mean?Like, man, science is so uncool. Why do you think the Holy Donald Trump came down the mountain to pee on experts? Truth is all yesterday. Flowers grow on bullshit - let's beautify the world with ignorance and wild assertion.
Post by: paul cotter on 20/06/2023 13:07:09
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 20/06/2023 20:56:24
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 20/06/2023 21:08:45
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2023 21:16:10
when you start from a solid base.You haven't done that.
You just made up stuff.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/06/2023 22:23:44
BOOOOOOO!!!!!
Are you spamming? Keep in mind that is what got you banned the last time. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen much difference between how you acted pre-ban and how you are acting now. You are still being immature when others disagree with you. You have complete control over your behavior. Please start acting like an adult.
You also didn't answer my question. What did you mean by "naked genius powerless troll friends"?
cube nucleus, electric shell and magnetic field, retraction of shell, frequency, and conductivity. All of these and more make sense to the theory of temperature and stationary heat and connect.
The current model of temperature is sufficient to explain what we observe.
That should be what makes a theory solid.
What makes a theory solid is both its ability to be tested and the evidence gathered through those very tests. Do you have tests and evidence for your model? More importantly, how is the existing model insufficient?
Not building on anti aether.
Aether was discarded because there is no evidence for its existence. Aether is not even remotely necessary to explain how heat, the nucleus or nuclear fusion work.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/06/2023 00:09:11
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2023 00:24:06
why don't you guys come up with something to work on?!? all you do is bitch.
Critiquing your ideas is completely in line with the purpose of this forum. If you don't like being critiqued, then you're not in the right place. You should know, based on past experience, that we are going to correct you when you say something that goes against the grain of the current state of scientific evidence. With that in mind, why did you want us to un-ban you so that you could come back and face the same kind of push-back that you got before? Did you think that we would discard current scientific theory in favor of a model for which you cannot offer evidence? Why?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/06/2023 04:47:57
Its funny that we agree we 100% see it our own way and not the other. But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science, there's no way in hell I'm bending for you just the same as you for me! hahawhy don't you guys come up with something to work on?!? all you do is bitch.
Critiquing your ideas is completely in line with the purpose of this forum. If you don't like being critiqued, then you're not in the right place. You should know, based on past experience, that we are going to correct you when you say something that goes against the grain of the current state of scientific evidence. With that in mind, why did you want us to un-ban you so that you could come back and face the same kind of push-back that you got before? Did you think that we would discard current scientific theory in favor of a model for which you cannot offer evidence? Why?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2023 06:19:35
Its funny that we agree we 100% see it our own way and not the other.
So why are you pushing for something that doesn't have evidence?
But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science
Such as?
there's no way in hell I'm bending for you just the same as you for me! haha
The reason I'm not "bending" for you is because (1) you can't back up your assertions with evidence, and (2) the current models we have do have evidence. Please don't try to frame this as a mere difference of opinion. It's not. One side has evidence and the other doesn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/06/2023 08:37:41
why don't you guys come up with something to work on?There are essentially two things we could come up with
(1) the problems with your idea and
(2) a better idea.
And we have done both.
But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science,No, you plainly do not.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/06/2023 14:24:45
why don't you guys come up with something to work on?More than happy to try. What's the problem for which you need a solution?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/06/2023 19:30:14
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2023 19:51:13
Huh, I guess when you get off on the wrong foot, with particle physics and dismissing the aether in 1905, this is what happens readers.The evidence dismissed the aether.
Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley went looking for it but were surprised to find it wasn't there.
That's it.
End of story.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/06/2023 06:44:38
Huh, I guess when you get off on the wrong foot, with particle physics and dismissing the aether in 1905, this is what happens readers.
In what sense have we gotten off on the wrong foot?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/06/2023 18:02:19
Sadly, I recall writing that same sentence in another science chatroom about 20 years ago!
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 25/06/2023 23:11:00
Post by: pzkpfw on 25/06/2023 23:25:04
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 25/06/2023 23:49:10
You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".If light was discredited as travelling along the aether, why would making it a particle and not a wave change the expectations of M&M? or is it just simply overlooked that a photon would experience the same change in momentum that was predicted by M&M?
It was discarded because of empirical evidence.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/06/2023 00:05:01
So the shell around the nucleus is composed of electricity not spinning electrons. Electricity is not made up of particles called electrons.
We very much have evidence that atoms contain particles called electrons. Have you read up on the history of the electron?
You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".If light was discredited as travelling along the aether, why would making it a particle and not a wave change the expectations of M&M? or is it just simply overlooked that a photon would experience the same change in momentum that was predicted by M&M?
It was discarded because of empirical evidence.
Photons can be waves as well as particles. What the M&M experiment ruled out was a non-relativistic aether. There could, in principle, be a relativistic aether (one of the tenets of Lorentz aether theory). However, that would make the aether undetectable. If it is undetectable, and relativity doesn't need it to explain the behavior of light, then there is no need to invoke it as an explanation.
There is no good evidence for the aether. If you disagree, then please post that evidence (and make sure it isn't CGI before you do).
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 26/06/2023 02:45:29
Photons can be waves as well as particles. What the M&M experiment ruled out was a non-relativistic aether. There could, in principle, be a relativistic aether (one of the tenets of Lorentz aether theory). However, that would make the aether undetectable. If it is undetectable, and relativity doesn't need it to explain the behavior of light, then there is no need to invoke it as an explanation.An undetectable aether? Your understanding of my question is off. I don't really care about studying the history of these things, or what they've grown into. It offends me. I'm offended right now while you sit there smug as a person can be? Is this seriously my problem? I know your team of naked g-s's are going to pounce again. I'm already offended? I hate that intelligent people are collected from birth to keep this crap wheel institution togather!?! Highly offensive IMO and does evil unto man's heart. Oh well its been four weeks, not a lot else to add at the moment. Go offend someone else with your 'empirical' knowledge on these subjects. Don't waste my time anymore please and thank you.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/06/2023 02:52:01
An undetectable aether? Your understanding of my question is off.
So can you elaborate on what you meant?
I don't really care about studying the history of these things, or what they've grown into. It offends me.
...and why would the history of something offend you?
I hate that intelligent people are collected from birth to keep this crap wheel institution togather!?!
Do you have evidence for this claim?
Highly offensive IMO and does evil unto man's heart.
How so?
Go offend someone else with your 'empirical' knowledge on these subjects.
It makes no sense for you to be offended by evidence.
Don't waste my time anymore please and thank you.
In what way have I wasted your time?
Post by: paul cotter on 26/06/2023 12:13:29
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 08/07/2023 23:18:56
Post by: Kryptid on 09/07/2023 03:51:34
Does a magnetic field extend from the electric shell of the atom? any thoughts?
If by "electric shell" you mean "electron shell", then the answer is yes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2023 11:52:03
Does a magnetic field extend from the electric shell of the atom? any thoughts?If you have a single hydrogen atom on its own, the magnetic field has three components.
The electron has a magnetic moment,
so does the proton and
the orbital momentum of the electron, together with its charge provides a third.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 11/07/2023 02:34:05
Post by: Kryptid on 11/07/2023 05:57:43
Okay then would you agree that the electric shell is hot?
That's kind of a tricky question. The electrons in the shells around an atom are, in some sense, moving. I wouldn't think this is the same kind of movement that would exist in, say, a hot gas where molecules bump into each other. The electrons are more like standing waves.
and the magnetic field a tapering of this heat?
No, magnetic fields are basically electric fields viewed from a different reference frame (if I understand correctly). A moving electric charge produces a magnetic field as a result of relativity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2023 08:37:13
Okay then would you agree that the electric shell is hot?No.
That makes no sense.
What I said about a hydrogen atom is still true even if you cool it to practically absolute zero.
and the magnetic field a tapering of this heat?Obviously, since no heat is involved, that's wrong.
But the idea of "tapering heat" is meaningless anyway.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/07/2023 20:32:33
I guess absolute zero is the pure temperature of the aether at our distance from the nucleus of the universe. Theoretically there is no minimum of maximum temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2023 20:54:14
I guess absolute zero is the pure temperature of the aetherSince the aether doesn't exist, it doesn't have a temperature.
So your guess is wrong.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/07/2023 21:18:29
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2023 21:22:20
Electric shells repel when they touch because electricity is made of heat and heat conducts in one direction, towards equilibrium. So the two electric shells repel because of heat's quality of conducting. When a larger atom like oxygen bonds with a smaller atom like hydrogen, the hydrogen has a weaker electric shell and the retraction of the magnetic field back into the shell from the gravity of the molecular bond would be stronger for the smaller atom's in the bond.No.
That doesn't make sense either.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2023 22:17:29
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 14/07/2023 02:44:08
what?: repulsion, the other thingElectric shells repel when they touch because electricity is made of heat and heat conducts in one direction, towards equilibrium. So the two electric shells repel because of heat's quality of conducting. When a larger atom like oxygen bonds with a smaller atom like hydrogen, the hydrogen has a weaker electric shell and the retraction of the magnetic field back into the shell from the gravity of the molecular bond would be stronger for the smaller atom's in the bond.No.
That doesn't make sense either.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2023 04:09:14
what?: repulsion, the other thing
Electricity isn't made of heat. Molecular bonds don't have anything to do with gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2023 08:24:20
None of it makes sense.what?: repulsion, the other thingElectric shells repel when they touch because electricity is made of heat and heat conducts in one direction, towards equilibrium. So the two electric shells repel because of heat's quality of conducting. When a larger atom like oxygen bonds with a smaller atom like hydrogen, the hydrogen has a weaker electric shell and the retraction of the magnetic field back into the shell from the gravity of the molecular bond would be stronger for the smaller atom's in the bond.No.
That doesn't make sense either.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2023 08:25:24
I think trevorjohnson is ChatGPT, thinly disguised.He's not that good.
Post by: paul cotter on 14/07/2023 13:42:53
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2023 14:52:54
Not entirely fanciful. I played a concert in a church last weekend, and noticed that there were a few life-size Perspex silhouettes of men propped up in some of the pews. It turned out that these are part of the war memorial - the blokes who should be here but aren't. Very effective.
Post by: paul cotter on 14/07/2023 19:05:08
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 16/07/2023 08:33:45
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2023 09:58:53
So according to you guys the universe is consistent forever as our visible universe?Do you think anyone here actually said anything like that?
If you do, please quote it because I'd like to know what it is you misunderstood.
The 'wit' you use to make your answers more ridicule for some of this 'empirical knowledge', raleigh scattering and this, it would create quite the lark!That's not a sentence.
What did you think it meant?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/07/2023 14:18:00
So according to you guys the universe is consistent forever as our visible universe?
I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
does the universe have any type of shape?
It seems to be flat, if you'd consider that a shape: https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 20/07/2023 05:56:27
download.jpg (8.34 kB . 300x120 - viewed 167 times)
Post by: Kryptid on 20/07/2023 06:12:50
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 20/07/2023 07:08:26
What is that image meant to show us?It's an image of galaxy's with red shift. I notice that they seem to be glowing red. I've had to much to think already. I'll take a shot at it later.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/07/2023 11:50:46
I notice that they seem to be glowing red.Maybe they just are red.
That picture does not tell us anything.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 02:04:49
Energy is transferred to the light wave when the light wave propagates towards the gravitational body, resulting in that hv and v increase, i.e. blueshift. Energy is transferred from the light wave when the light wave propagates from the gravitational body, resulting in that hv and v decrease, i.e. redshift
This answer is out there but not a single juxtaposition of the idea of the sky being blue.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 03:22:05
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 03:34:11
Post by: Kryptid on 22/07/2023 05:06:23
This answer is out there but not a single juxtaposition of the idea of the sky being blue.
Because it's not the reason why the sky is blue.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 08:14:34
So the light entering a gravity is blueshifted, there's plenty who would argue yes. What makes you believe the light entering earth from above would NOT experience this blue shift?This answer is out there but not a single juxtaposition of the idea of the sky being blue.
Because it's not the reason why the sky is blue.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/07/2023 08:48:55
Post by: paul cotter on 22/07/2023 09:31:07
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2023 11:03:08
This answer is out there but not a single juxtaposition of the idea of the sky being blue.We know how much the earth's gravitational field changes the wavelength of em radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
And the effect is tiny. About 1 part in 1000000000000000
It's almost impossible to measure.
So it can't be responsible for anything as obvious as the colour of the sky.
Also, we know how gravity affects different wavelengths and teh blue of the sky doesn't have the right spectrum to be due to blue shifting.
Why are you still flogging this dead horse?
Are you not clever enough to understand the logic involved?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 23:05:08
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 22/07/2023 23:09:46
Post by: Kryptid on 23/07/2023 05:31:20
None of those answers proved anything
It's almost as if you are simply ignoring them instead of understanding them.
they look like whimsical thoughtless responses.
So you think that blue shift literally means that light turns blue?
You think that a gravitational blue shift factor of "about 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000" can be detected by the human eye? By the way, here is an example of just how tiny that factor is. A red photon has a wavelength ranging from 620 to 750 nanometers: https://scied.ucar.edu/image/wavelength-blue-and-red-light-image#:~:text=Red%20light%20has%20longer%20waves,around%20620%20to%20750%20nm.
That would be a change in wavelength of 6.2 to 7.5 x 10-13 nanometers. So that would be a decrease from 750 nanometers to 749.9999999999999 nanometers or 620 nanometers to 619.9999999999999 nanometers. Now why don't we compare that with the blue shift factor caused by movement (the Doppler effect)? https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1258042695
A 750 nanometer photon emitted by an object travelling at 8 kilometers per hour is blue shifted towards an observe to 749.9999995 nanometers. That is a larger change in wavelength than what the Earth's gravity provides. Now let me ask you, does a person look noticeably bluer when they jog towards you? If the answer is no (and I know that it is), then the sky isn't going to look bluer due to gravitational blue shift either.
Actually Ralley burger cheese racing is what causes the sky to turn orange at sunset. It's when the giant ball of cheese in the sky starts leaking. It goes along with the raleigh thing
Why are you still trolling? I cannot understand what's so hard about acting like a mature adult. Consider this strike two. Three strikes and you're gone for good this time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2023 14:03:55
None of those answers proved anything, they look like whimsical thoughtless responses.They didn't prove anything to you and they look whimsical to you, because you don't understand them.
We know why the sky is blue.
We know that it is impossible for it to be gravitational blue shifting.
If you can find a reputable source that says the sky is blue because of gravitational blue shift, then let us know.
Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth and time.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/07/2023 23:21:21
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/07/2023 23:29:46
As I have said previously if earth's gravity was sufficient to shift part of the light from the sun to blue then why is it not all blue? The op appears to be immune to reason.
When you look up at the sky your looking through miles of blueshift, it isn't noticeable locally. Apparently it requires an atmosphere to reflect the light as well.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2023 01:28:38
Is the sky black on the moon because there is no atmosphere to create Raleigh scattering?
Yep.
When you look up at the sky your looking through miles of blueshift, it isn't noticeable locally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Quote
Navigational signals from GPS satellites orbiting at 20,000 km altitude are perceived blueshifted by approximately 0.5 ppb or 5 ? 10−10,[10] corresponding to a (negligible) increase of less than 1 Hz in the frequency of a 1.5 GHz GPS radio signal
So a red photon with a wavelength of 750 nanometers would be blue-shifted to 749.999999625 nanometers. That's still roughly comparable to the Doppler blue-shift of a person jogging. So looking through miles of blue-shift still doesn't work.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/07/2023 03:17:27
main-qimg-09728f36fe4ae7bf56fdb208f853e02c-lq.jpg (71.58 kB . 602x605 - viewed 210 times)Evidentally the sun looks blueshifted in this picture
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2023 04:33:58
not your gps nonsense.
Explain how it is "nonsense".
Evidentally the sun looks blueshifted in this picture
Maybe to your eyes, but when I put the image in to paint program (Paint.NET, to be specific) and checked the RGB values of the Sun, it gives me results where the red, green and blue values are all equal or close to equal (ranging from 243 to 248). So if it looks blue-shifted to you, then it's just an illusion.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/07/2023 05:30:07
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/07/2023 05:31:08
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/07/2023 05:35:19
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2023 06:09:23
clearly blue shifted in this one and several others.
No, it's not. Look at the attachment I have added to this post. That is the color of the Sun in that second image. That is a pale yellow-white, not blue.
And before you go running off to find other pictures of the Sun, you need to remember that not all images have their colors calibrated the same way. Comparing one to another is like comparing apples with oranges.
anyways what's more interseting is the sun is near the horizon in these pictures and still remains blue.
Firstly, it's not blue. Secondly, the Sun doesn't change color near the horizon on the Moon because there is no atmosphere there.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is "nonsense" about the blue shift numbers that have been provided. Give us a legitimate answer.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/07/2023 06:34:42
Post by: Kryptid on 24/07/2023 06:36:00
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2023 08:48:54
Looks like the explanation for the sunset is more complicated then I thought.It just looks like you are wrong- as usual.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2023 08:50:47
sorry not buying itThere are three reasons for not "buying" reality.
Stupidity, insanity or dishonesty; and they are not mutually exclusive.
Calling you a troll is the least impolite.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2023 14:38:45
There are three reasons for not "buying" reality.Or sticking with the consensus.
Stupidity, insanity or dishonesty;
Textbooks written within living memory (mine) referred to the aether, and time was that 100% of the population knew with absolute certainty that the sun went round the flat earth when it wasn't shining from the Pope's anus.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2023 15:32:40
I'd have said that sticking with the consensus rather than with the evidence was an example of stupidity.There are three reasons for not "buying" reality.Or sticking with the consensus.
Stupidity, insanity or dishonesty;
Textbooks written within living memory (mine) referred to the aether, and time was that 100% of the population knew with absolute certainty that the sun went round the flat earth when it wasn't shining from the Pope's anus.
Your view may differ.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2023 23:59:31
I'd have said that sticking with the consensus rather than with the evidence was an example of stupidity.Or, in the case of Bruno, Galileo,...... Einstein....., ......self-preservation. A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and among his own people.
The one thing we know about consensus is that stupid people believe it, and the stronger the consensus, the greater the number of stupid people.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2023 09:37:32
Or, in the case of Bruno, Galileo,...... Einstein....., ......self-preservation.I'm fairly sure they are best known for not sticking with the consensus.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/08/2023 01:22:38
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/08/2023 01:43:19
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 09:17:30
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 23/08/2023 12:32:42
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2023 13:09:39
Evidently gold which is the best conductorIt isn't.
And the rest of your posts make no sense.
Post by: paul cotter on 23/08/2023 14:36:45
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 26/08/2023 23:45:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2023 23:51:38
One thing we can say about the nucleus is it must be similar to earth in that it creates and internal stationary heat from pressure. TNo, it does not.
Nor does the earth.
the surrounding aetherThe aether does not exist.
For its size we can probably assume the nucleus is very dense and small and hot.Two out of three.
It's not hot.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 30/08/2023 00:25:56
Two out of three.
It's not hot.
I have clearly defined why I believe this arguement about pressure heat. Like most of the disputes you create between us you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong by showing any evidence, you just insist that you are right. That's why I ignore most of your comments. Please state how I'm wrong that pressure heat is different then radiating heat?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2023 01:12:35
Please state how I'm wrong that pressure heat is different then radiating heat?
How are you defining them to be different?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 30/08/2023 05:30:14
How are you defining them to be different?
When you heat something with pressure, its not an endless source of radiating heat. The heat created by the substance remains within the substance, and if it is removed the substance re absorbs it. This is not true for something that is merely hot. The heat radiates away but not when its created by pressure. Tell me if putting pressure on a substance causes radiating not stationary heat, then why don't we use substances under pressure to boil water?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2023 06:09:30
When you heat something with pressure, its not an endless source of radiating heat.
Nothing is an endless source of radiating heat.
The heat created by the substance remains within the substance
This is not true. Objects heated through compression radiate heat. A space capsule reentering the Earth's atmosphere massively compresses the air ahead of it. This causes the air to become so hot that it glows. That glow is visible light and therefore a form of electromagnetic radiation.
and if it is removed the substance re absorbs it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this part.
The heat radiates away but not when its created by pressure.
It does. When clouds of gas in space start to collapse due to gravity, they become hot (basic gas laws). That heat doesn't stay in the gas, though. It is slowly radiated away. We know this because we are able to detect it. Take a look at some low mass brown dwarf stars. They are too small to heat themselves with nuclear fusion, yet they are much warmer than the surrounding vacuum because they retain heat from their initial formation. They will slowly radiate that heat and cool off over time. Even large planets like Jupiter emit more heat than they absorb from the Sun.
Tell me if putting pressure on a substance causes radiating not stationary heat, then why don't we use substances under pressure to boil water?
You could do that in principle, but it sounds inefficient and potentially dangerous to try to compress ambient air until it's hot enough to boil water. You might as well use whatever power source you are using to compress the air to boil the water directly.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 30/08/2023 07:53:22
Stars and pressure are also things too. I was again just trying to see that you knew. :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2023 08:41:55
I have clearly defined why I believe this arguement about pressure heat.The first mention of pressure in this thread is your assertion that
One thing we can say about the nucleus is it must be similar to earth in that it creates and internal stationary heat from pressure
That's not a clear definition of anything, is it?
You have made up an idea of "stationary heat" which makes no sense because all form of heat involve the movement of particles.
That's why I ignore most of your comments.As far as I can tell, the reason you ignore my comments is because you know you can't answer my points without admitting that you are talking nonsense.
Your problem is that you simply do not understand what heat and pressure are.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 31/08/2023 01:06:57
You have made up an idea of "stationary heat" which makes no sense because all form of heat involve the movement of particles.
Its not conventional radiating heat in the center of the earth. I call it time dilation heat. The proximity of the atom's to one anotherr causes their gravity fields to retract and heat up the nucleus and space around it. Retraction of a gravity field thusly causes light to move through it slower and time dilation. It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center. That's what brings mass together, stars, fusion, the evolution of forward moving energy.,,
Magnets are similar. When you pack a great number of magnetic atom's in close range, the magnetic field bulges out and makes the magnetic field around the magnet.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2023 06:09:34
Its not conventional radiating heat in the center of the earth.
Yes it is. It just gets absorbed by the surrounding material. If you were to peel the outer layers of the Earth away, the core would glow brightly and radiate heat quite readily into space (as very hot metal should).
The proximity of the atom's to one anotherr causes their gravity fields to retract
Evidence?
and heat up the nucleus and space around it.
Evidence?
Retraction of a gravity field thusly causes light to move through it slower and time dilation.
Evidence?
It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center. That's what brings mass together, stars, fusion, the evolution of forward moving energy.,,
Evidence?
Magnets are similar. When you pack a great number of magnetic atom's in close range, the magnetic field bulges out and makes the magnetic field around the magnet.
Evidence?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 31/08/2023 07:49:59
Yes it is. It just gets absorbed by the surrounding material. If you were to peel the outer layers of the Earth away, the core would glow brightly and radiate heat quite readily into space (as very hot metal should).If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all. Or a new smaller core would form. maybe if you scatter the peels like an orange they change colors? scattering and peels is two ideas.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2023 13:44:57
It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center.Pressure does not cause heat.
This will remain true no matter how often you try to claim otherwise.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2023 17:31:22
If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all.
Yes it would. The heat in the core wouldn't just vanish. That is something guaranteed by the first law of thermodynamics.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 01/09/2023 23:25:06
Still the same picture 7 years later describes gravity the same.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2023 00:40:54
Still the same picture 7 years laterStill meaningless nonsense.
Did you not realise that?
I'd imagine it was made clear at the time.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/09/2023 09:27:28
If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all.
Yes it would. The heat in the core wouldn't just vanish. That is something guaranteed by the first law of thermodynamics.
So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust. In the meantime the radiating heat is just sitting in the core waiting to be released through what? a volcano? Tell me what object can you heat up to molten temperatures in the center, and still be able to hold it because 90% of it is 'blanketing' the molten center making its shell room temperature? No such material exists. Dinosaurs.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/09/2023 09:46:57
So when they use fluorocarbons in air conditioning, and they put pressure on the gas turning it into a hot liquid, this is not an example of pressure creating heat? I'm not a old dinosaur like you and haven't had the time to develop my theories like your theories that are so as much smart as they sound thpt. That's true though if you guys are so smart why aren't you ahead? seriously. you are much like chatGPT spitting out wiki answers. Is that smart? Am I seriously taking you guys serious anymore?It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center.Pressure does not cause heat.
This will remain true no matter how often you try to claim otherwise.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2023 09:53:10
So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust.Yes.
We know that there are radioactive materials on earth. We know that their decay produces heat.
What else could happen to that heat apart from it being carried to the surface and radiated into space?
In the meantime the radiating heat is just sitting in the core waiting to be released through what? a volcano?No
Most of it is carried by a combination of convection currents and conduction.
Vulcanism is a fairly small part of the process.
This sets up a thermal gradient- the surface is cool, but it gets hotter as you go down.
I believe some of the most powerful refrigeration systems in the world provide the air conditioning for gold mines.
Tell me what object can you heat up to molten temperatures in the center, and still be able to hold it because 90% of it is 'blanketing' the molten center making its shell room temperature?Rock.
The middle is hot + maybe molten. But the layer outside that is a little cooler and so on. Gravity holds it all together.
People have understood this for a hundred years or more. Those who still don't get it are
Dinosaurs.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2023 09:56:25
So when they use fluorocarbons in air conditioning, and they put pressure on the gas turning it into a hot liquid, this is not an example of pressure creating heat?That's correct. It isn't pressure creating heat.
The heat is released because the molecules are, in effect, "sticky".
It's called latent heat of vapourisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
That's true though if you guys are so smart why aren't you ahead? seriously.Ahead of what?
As I just pointed out in my last two posts here, you do not seem to know what you are talking about.
So, at least we are ahead of you.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/09/2023 10:53:24
Ahead of what?
As I just pointed out in my last two posts here, you do not seem to know what you are talking about.
So, at least we are ahead of you.
How again is gravity created according to your whatever it is you rely on for 'truth'?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2023 11:08:59
How again is gravity created according to your whatever it is you rely on for 'truth'?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Einstein_field_equations
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2023 18:01:37
So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust.
Yes.
In the meantime the radiating heat is just sitting in the core waiting to be released through what? a volcano?
It isn't "radiating heat", it's just "heat". And the heat isn't released only through volcanoes. It's also released through conduction. At least some of the warmth of the crust comes from internal heating.
Tell me what object can you heat up to molten temperatures in the center, and still be able to hold it because 90% of it is 'blanketing' the molten center making its shell room temperature?
The Earth, because that's how it is.
No such material exists.
Clearly it does, given that's how the Earth works.
What I said earlier about the first law of thermodynamics is true. Take the core out of the Earth and the heat inside of it cannot spontaneously disappear. That heat represents a form of energy. Energy cannot be destroyed. It will remain there until it is radiated away. A ball of metal at thousands of degrees glows and radiates heat.
Dinosaurs.
And that has what to do with any of this?
seriously. you are much like chatGPT spitting out wiki answers. Is that smart?
It is if the answers are correct.
Am I seriously taking you guys serious anymore?
If not, you're free to leave. Keep up the snarky attitude and we'll help you with that.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/09/2023 23:23:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2023 23:36:18
weight pressureWhat did you think that meant?
Weight and pressure are not the same thing; they have different units.
Could be free energy from gravityNo; it can't.
Try to avoid such silly ideas.
if you put enough pressure on each side you could boil waterHigh pressure makes it harder to boil things.
Am I seriously taking you guys serious anymore?It doesn't look like it.
You seem to be deliberately posting stuff that would embarrass a teenager in a science class.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2023 00:55:50
Well since you guys are so gun ho on evidence, perhaps this little experiment... Put weight pressure on six sides of a hexagon that squeezes a core, see if it heats up. Could be free energy from gravity if you put enough pressure on each side you could boil water with the core, then the core would magically re absorb heat from the atmosphere.
That wouldn't be free energy.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 00:19:19
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2023 00:40:10
It has to be retraction of a core atoms gravity field that causes the earth's gravity field
What does it mean for a gravity field to retract?
And it still wouldn't be free energy. Noether's theorem demonstrates this.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 00:46:20
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 00:54:59
What does it mean for a gravity field to retract?
The gravity field of the nucleus can't convert it's gravitational pull into movement so the field retracts on itself. Might be a clue into molecular formation. So overlapping gravity fields don't cause them to retract but pulls the two objects together, then because of the shell repulsion, the pull of gravity is converted into retraction of the gravity field's like two knots pulling on each other making them tighter.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2023 05:01:06
The gravity field of the nucleus can't convert it's gravitational pull into movement
Yes it can. Forces are good at doing that.
so the field retracts on itself.
I asked you what it means for a gravitational field to retract and you answer by saying that it retracts. That doesn't help me understand what you mean.
Might be a clue into molecular formation.
The gravitational pull between two atoms is practically nonexistent. The electromagnetic force is responsible for molecule formation.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 06:39:42
I asked you what it means for a gravitational field to retract and you answer by saying that it retracts. That doesn't help me understand what you mean.Ok Ok, Lets say your nucleus has a temperature of 10 from pressure heat, a gravity field that tapers off from 10 to 1, and the surrounding space which is 1. If you raise the temperature of space to 2, what happens to the gravity field? It's edge that is touching space will become as dense and hot as the surrounding space, this will send density and temperature backwards into the nucleus. So when you pack all the atom's tight and there gravity fields overlap, this is what happens the temperature of space increases between the atom's.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 07:30:07
Actually a smarter equation to find the mass of earth might involve going up in space and statistics from two known masses like metal sphere's and how long it takes for them to come together travelling x distance. Then use those variables to calculate the mass of earth. I saw a video way back when of just this type of thing in space but haven't found it since.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2023 11:27:15
Lets say your nucleus has a temperature of 10 from pressure heat,It doesn't. So let's not say that.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2023 14:36:46
Ok Ok, Lets say your nucleus has a temperature of 10 from pressure heat
Given that an atomic nucleus in its ground state does not produce radiation, it's a rather dubious idea that it has a temperature at all (and no, there is no difference between "pressure heat" and "radiating heat").
a gravity field that tapers off from 10 to 1, and the surrounding space which is 1.
Gravitational fields and empty space don't have temperatures.
If you raise the temperature of space to 2, what happens to the gravity field?
You can't raise the temperature of empty space.
It's edge that is touching space will become as dense and hot as the surrounding space
First of all, gravitational fields don't have an edge: they extend infinitely. Second of all, gravitational fields don't have a density or a temperature.
this will send density and temperature backwards into the nucleus.
I can't make sense of this.
So when you pack all the atom's tight and there gravity fields overlap,
All gravitational fields already overlap whether the atoms are close or not. This is because gravity is a force that follows the inverse square law and never goes to zero strength with distance.
this is what happens the temperature of space increases between the atom's.
No it doesn't, because space doesn't have a temperature.
When an object falls into a gravity field like earth's the outer edge of the object's gravity field
Gravitational fields don't have an edge.
the outer edge of the object's gravity field 'sheds' or retracts its layers as it enters the earth's gravity field
I'm not sure what this means but I'm pretty sure there's no evidence for it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2023 19:30:30
I saw a video way back when of just this type of thing in space but haven't found it since.Good.
Any such video should have been deleted.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 20:21:47
Is this video an analogy of what you believe?How again is gravity created according to your whatever it is you rely on for 'truth'?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Einstein_field_equations
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2023 20:45:35
Is this video an analogy of what you believe?
"Analogy" being the operative word here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2023 21:06:02
Is this video an analogy of what you believe?Anything that mimics gravity is an analogy to how I think gravity works.
So what?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 05/09/2023 22:11:43
Anything that mimics gravity is an analogy to how I think gravity works.The picture I posted in post 135 is a top view of the experiment. Can you not see that? It is the correct view of the experiment, the side view which shows bending or curvature is null as well as the bottom view. The top view is the only accurate view because the plane of the sheet is parallel to the plane of earth's gravity. Without gravity below the sheet the experiment doesn't show anything.
So what?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2023 22:54:52
Without gravity below the sheet the experiment doesn't show anything.So, remind me not to try doing that experiment if I'm in free fall.
But the rest of the time it works just fine.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 06/09/2023 22:07:19
So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust.
Yes.
Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive? How would people survive the radioactivity when visiting below the surface. Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface? with no 'blanket' above? Shouldn't the heat be rising up like a chimney?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2023 00:42:35
Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive?
The whole Earth is, indeed, radioactive. It's generally at levels that are low enough for us to survive without problems.
Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface?
If you dig deep enough, that's exactly what happens. The excess heat is one of the limiting factors to how deep we can drill with current technology.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/09/2023 07:03:59
If you dig deep enough, that's exactly what happens. The excess heat is one of the limiting factors to how deep we can drill with current technology.Would you say the heat in the core is backed up? or bottled up by the blanket? and how can it be that heat is being made through radioactive decay, is building up up in the core, obviously faster then its conducting to the surface, without increasing exponentially? So in other words if the heat is backing up below the surface, it would seem that the planet would either lose the heat quicker or it would get hotter and hotter in the core?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2023 08:47:17
Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive?It is.
We call it background radiation.
Do you not realise that, before you tell science that it is wrong, you should learn things like this?
Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface?Yes.
I already said this was what happened.
This sets up a thermal gradient- the surface is cool, but it gets hotter as you go down.
I believe some of the most powerful refrigeration systems in the world provide the air conditioning for gold mines.
Is there some reason why you do not read and remember what we say here?
It seems to be some sort of medical condition.
Have you sought treatment for it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2023 08:49:51
obviously faster then its conducting to the surface,No, It's being generated at exactly the same rate that it is conducted away.
Would you say the heat in the core is backed up? or bottled up by the blanket?No.
It isn't backed up.
You need to learn about thermal conductivity. (and a lot of other things).
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/09/2023 19:51:33
It isn't backed up.You said the crust is like a blanket for the heat, last time i checked blankets are not only capable of but there sole purpose is to trap heat below?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2023 20:37:05
If that was true you would never need two,It isn't backed up.You said the crust is like a blanket for the heat, last time i checked blankets are not only capable of but there sole purpose is to trap heat below?
Have you considered studying physics at all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/09/2023 22:44:49
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/09/2023 23:03:28
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 07/09/2023 23:12:36
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2023 23:15:48
Frankly if all that heat is radiation the earth should explode like a bomb.
Can you show the math to support this assertion?
the heat is perfectly distributed through the earth.
Do you have a citation for that?
I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.
Empty space doesn't have a temperature. There are no particles in it to move.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 08/09/2023 01:57:40
the heat is perfectly distributed through the earth.
Do you have a citation for that?
Lets just say for the most part it is evenly distributed in the different layers of earth. What is your answer to my question?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 08/09/2023 02:11:07
So the heavier elements fall through the earth? at what rate? it would have to be a perfectly continuous rate or else the core temperature would vary. So what controls the rate at which these heavy elements sink? Why don't they all sink at once?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2023 06:00:36
Lets just say for the most part it is evenly distributed in the different layers of earth. What is your answer to my question?
I'm not at all convinced that is the case. There very probably are areas with more heat and with less heat (at least in the mantle, because it is a plastic solid). Once you get to the outer core, you are dealing with a liquid. Mixing would distribute the radioisotopes pretty evenly.
So the heavier elements fall through the earth? at what rate?
It sounds like they are referring to the formation of the Earth, way back when it was entirely molten. So this is a process that has, for the most part, stopped happening on any significant scale today.
Post by: Zer0 on 10/09/2023 21:22:06
I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.
Good Point!
I was trying to Imagine a Single Atom drifting in the deep void of Space.
What ' Temp ' would it have...
Any Thoughts?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2023 23:24:59
I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.
Good Point!
I was trying to Imagine a Single Atom drifting in the deep void of Space.
What ' Temp ' would it have...
Any Thoughts?
Temperature is a bulk property of systems of particles. A single atom doesn't have a temperature.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 11/09/2023 05:21:38
Temperature is a bulk property of systems of particles. A single atom doesn't have a temperature.
The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure. Could it be that radioactive decay is scattering its heat in the core of the nucleus as well?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/09/2023 05:30:51
The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure.
It's not. It's in its ground state (usually).
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 12/09/2023 00:45:02
Where are you getting these measurements for the core of the nucleus? How would you go about measuring such a thing?The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure.
It's not. It's in its ground state (usually).
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2023 01:41:47
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 12/09/2023 03:10:59
Hot things emit radiation. A stable atomic nucleus in its ground state does not, so it isn't hot.Well kryptid we seem to be reading different books and shunning the others. Where is this going? Maybe the topic of fusion? could you explain your idea of it, I won't judge you.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2023 05:45:30
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/09/2023 09:23:30
It doesn't have anything to do with fusion. Objects with a nonzero absolute temperature (anything above zero kelvins) emit thermal radiation. An atomic nucleus doesn't. Therefore, an atomic nucleus doesn't have a nonzero temperature.It does have something to do with fusion Kryptid. Where do you think the heat released from a fusion reaction comes from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2023 13:18:57
Where do you think the heat released from a fusion reaction comes from?The strong nuclear force.
Were you working on the idea that it might be gravity or the electromagnetic force or some other nonsense?
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 13/09/2023 23:17:28
The strong nuclear force.
You insult people in a way that no one would ever want to learn from what you post. Everytime you post something its something with two sides that you expect me to oppose. I don't care to even grace my mind against such topics because they are full of sh1t.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 14/09/2023 02:29:58
It's true that when you pressurize a material (thus doing work on it), then it heats up; however, it then comes to thermal equilibrium with what's around it. After a while, the bottom of a 10 km vertical tube of water, while under tremendous pressure, would be at room temperature.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2023 04:22:51
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2023 08:03:36
I don't care to even grace my mind against such topics because they are full of sh1t.I'm the one telling the truth; the heat from fusion energy is from the strong nuclear force.
If the topic is crappy, don't accuse me of being the one adding the manure.
If you don't like being corrected; make fewer mistakes, or make them elsewhere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2023 08:10:28
This from googleWe have been saying that all along.
It's true that when you pressurize a material (thus doing work on it), then it heats up; however, it then comes to thermal equilibrium with what's around it. After a while, the bottom of a 10 km vertical tube of water, while under tremendous pressure, would be at room temperature.
But you were talking about some other nonsensical "pressure heat"
internal stationary heat from pressure.
When you heat something with pressure, its not an endless source of radiating heat. The heat created by the substance remains within the substance,
It seems you finally learned that isn't true.
You should have listened to us earlier.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 14/09/2023 22:57:26
The core of the earth is going to be under pressure from all sides and the heat that goes to equilibrium on the surface would have nowhere to escape to in the core.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2023 00:01:11
Two things: what happens to the substance temperature when you take the pressure off?
Depends on what the substance in question is. If it's a gas, it will expand and cool off quickly. If it's a solid, it won't expand very much and will remain roughly the same temperature until the heat is either radiated or conducted away.
The core of the earth is going to be under pressure from all sides and the heat that goes to equilibrium on the surface would have nowhere to escape to in the core.
It escapes into the surrounding material (the mantle) via conduction and convection. If you are talking about putting the core in a vacuum, then the heat will escape via radiation.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 15/09/2023 01:06:28
It escapes into the surrounding material (the mantle) via conduction and convection. If you are talking about putting the core in a vacuum, then the heat will escape via radiation.The heat expands to a point, it is connected to the core and doesn't convect or other. With or without the heat, the core material acts as a single and produces the extending gravity field. So pressure towards the center closes the proximity of the atom's and creates a gravity field and magnetic field.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2023 03:17:09
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 15/09/2023 04:53:12
That's not right at all.I'm sorry to have to do this Kryptid but you are banned for one month, which time you will take piano lessons, then we'll meet back here for the competition....
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2023 05:03:24
EDIT: Actually, you already had two strikes against you. So consider that strike three. If you can't participate in a science discussion like an adult, then you'll need to look elsewhere to talk about it. I gave you a second chance to come back and abide by the rules. It seems that you couldn't do it in the long run.
Post by: paul cotter on 15/09/2023 20:22:18
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2023 21:15:38
Strike #3?, does this mean the OP will now be euthanased?
Yes.
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 15/09/2023 22:00:10
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2023 23:45:46