Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: mike03 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?
-
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?
-
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('[:(]')
-
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. [:(]
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!"
-
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!
-
The heat we are talking about here is different from the global warming type of heat. It’s 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 plant’s atomic mass.
When the oceans meet with the earth’s 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!"
-
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?
-
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!"
-
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
-
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.
-
And neither are the books!
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Ok I will rephrase that - not a very good representation of current scientific thinking if that is what you mean.
-
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 it’s 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!"
-
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.
-
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. http://www.answers.com/topic/timeline-of-the-universequote:
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 it’s 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.
-
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 Earth’s 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!"
-
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?
-
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!"
-
In time science would certainly accept the experiment if it was repeatable, whether your exact conclusions would be accepted would depend on the experiment and what it showed.
It is not that I automatically don't believe you Andrew, it is that your conclusions are not consistent with a lot of previous observations. So unless you can provide new observations, and make your theories mathematically consistent they are not going to be accepted.
-
The thing about time is that no one really knows how long we have got. The idea of sitting around waiting for someone else to decide whether my work deserves closer inspection or not, is something I do not have the time for! If people have to keep relying on often-archaic literature, it is not to make things fit with any new paradigm, I can assure you.
It is to make sure that academia soft jobs are zealously guarded, and that the academics don’t look too stupid, when they are kicked off their self-serving pedestals! Most of these people have never contributed Jack-**** to the progression of science and are often incapable of producing an original thought. Their job is to regurgitate often-undigested bull**** on demand, and vehemently defend it from anyone who dares to question their “Authority”???? Oddly enough, a bit like the requirements for passing any examination in a school. The pupils that ask why in class are often ridiculed and thought to be stupid. Has anyone ever considered that these pupils don’t understand the science because the science is flawed?
No connection with any person on this message board intended or implied.
Andrew
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
There admittedly are some acedemics who are as you describe, but there are also an awful lot of hard working people who would like nothing better than to change a paradigm or two (apart from anything else it will get them on TV). However for every paridigm changing experiment or theory you get several thousand experiments where someone plugged their wires in the wrong way round, lost a minus sign in their algebra or forgot an obvious alternative explanation, so you learn to be cynical about experiments that appear to give radical results especially your own.
This is why scientists are wary of people turning up with alternative hypothesis to explain how the universe works, when the current theories work extreemly accurately, and the alternative hasn't been experimentally tested, or even had back of the evelope calculations do to see whether it is self-consistent.
-
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
E. F. Schumacher
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew
Several years ago a friend challenged me to try to correlate earthquakes with the position of the moon and tides. I came up with nifty little program to calculate the longitude (though not latitude) position of the moon at any given time in the past 50 years (it could be stretched further back if need be, but earthquake information becomes far less reliable). I calculated correlation coefficients of over 120,0000 earthquake times and positions to the longitudinal position of the moon, broken down into several categories of magnitude and depth of the earthquake. There is absolutely no correlation between position of the moon and earthquakes, with two small exceptions- shallow earthquakes less than magnitude 2 showed a very weak positive correlation and deep earthquakes between magnitude 5 and 7 actually showed a very weak negative correlation. The moon causes, by far, the greatest tidal forces on earth. I also looked at correlations with aphelion and perihelion, apogee and perigee of the moon and alignment of sun-moon- again with no correlation. I have not yet tried this with volcanic eruptions, but strongly doubt that any correlation exists.
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
HI Bass
Thanks for your post.
Is there any way I can get my hands on the programme?
I would like to see if there is a correlation following 4-10 DAY period after the lunar events? Though not sure of locations of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Fathoming that one out is beyond me.
Only a month or so we were walking along the beech and I said to my wife at the time, that there is a lot of weight displaced to other areas, because the tide had gone out much further than I could remember. Sure enough, another earthquake hit the Indian Ocean not long after. There does seem to be a period after the event where nothing much happens, but if the tide has moved a substantial amount of water there does appear to be some kind of earth stress event.
Just re-read your post. Were you looking in specific areas on the planet in relation to the position of the moon event? Or did your programme account for the location in relation to the position of the lunar event?
Andrew
-
Andrew
That program was written several years and computers ago- seems to me that I ran it as a function on an Excel spreadsheet. I'll have a look around and see if I can find it- but can't make any promises.
What it compared was the longitudinal position of the moon with the longitudinal position of the earthquakes (plus or minus 10 degrees). I also examined correlation with the far side of the earth and perpendicular to earth-moon axis (to examine both high and low tides). I did not take into consideration latitudinal position, but I don't think this would have changed the correlation coefficients. I used an NOAA database showing spring and neap tides to calculate the coefficient with sun-moon alignment, and used a NASA database to get the perihelion, aphelion, apogee and perigee times.
Earthquake data came from a USGS worldwide database showing time, magnitude, depth and position of past earthquakes- like I said, several years ago so I don't remember the specific web site.
Then I plugged all this into a massive spreadsheet- in fact, I had to break into smaller spreadsheets (magnitude and depth) because my computer at the time kept running out of memory.
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
Can you remember whether it listed days post alignment event? Ive got a strong feeling that there is about a 4 day plus delay before anything happens.
Prior to the last eclipse visible here in the uk, I recall the local media scoffingly saying In ancient times the eclipse was thought to bring about disasters. I cringed when I heard it, as I had already mentioned this to my family. It was an amazing event, my dogs all just sat down and everything went deathly silent, then the shadow raced across the land eating up the surrounding area and triggering all the street lights to turn on. Awesome experience!
Thank you very much for your time and help, most appreciated
Andrew
-
While I didn't test for a delay of several days, I did graphically plot the number of earthquake events vs. alignment over time (actually the spring/neap tides). I don't recall that there was a spike in the number of earthquakes several days after spring tides (neap tides occur 7 days after spring tides). But I would have to find my past work to check for sure.
Assuming that earthquakes happen when when the strain finally becomes greater than the rocks resistance to breakage, why do you suppose a delay of 4 or so days would have an effect on earthquakes? My thoughts were that earth tides would increase strain or possibly decrease the vertical strain component, which could cause release- but these points would be either directly under the moon or perpendicular to the earth-moon axis.
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
Bass
I hold my hands up and don't really know for sure why the delay should occur.
One possible reason is the stability of the crust in the area over a period of time has built up some resistance to the stress, due to the compacting of the sediment and rocks.
Having used a road drill for some time to break up concrete and road surfaces, the first impact does not cause any considerable damage, and the eventual crumbling of the concrete takes some considerable vibrational impacts before it crumbles, leaving a delay from when you start the hammer to when you actually break up the concrete.
Maybe it takes a while for the vibrations to weaken the surface before the pressure caused by the shift in the force to have an effect.
It is just something I have noticed over the years and would be very interested to see if it can be backed up by historical events.
In areas that are unstable, the event should happen soon after the planetary alignments take place, whereas in areas free from relatively recent disturbances in the crust should resist the vibrations for a longer period.
If we turn to Io again, the constant pulling and releasing of Jupiter’s massive gravitational force does indicate that this effect is a possibility, as it is believed that a tremendous amount of friction and heat is generated by the alignment of the forces of both the planet and the moons. And I would presume that the effects on this environment would be near instantaneous, if not constant.
Another possibility is that the sudden release of the molten core, along with the weight of the shift in the ocean mass has an effect similar to that of stretched elastic when it is released and that the constant movements of the core as it settles back to a more stable ball shape rather than a slight egg shape is responsible for the delay in the events at the crust.
Andrew
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Andrew
I managed to find some of the charts I put together showing number of earthquakes relative to the phases of the moon and the moon's apogee-perigee. (Not knowing how to post a chart on this forum, I sent one of the charts to you via email).
The charts show very little correlation of earthquakes to phases of the moon. Nor did I notice any sort of delayed reaction- the 4 days or so that you hypothesized.
quote:
In areas that are unstable, the event should happen soon after the planetary alignments take place, whereas in areas free from relatively recent disturbances in the crust should resist the vibrations for a longer period.
Planetary alignment has no effect on earthquakes, the tidal forces are negligible. The amount of gravitational force objects have on earth is F=GMm/d^2, where F is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant (6.67259 X 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2), M is the mass of the object, m is the mass of the earth, and d is the distance between the objects. The formula for tidal forces is F=2GMm/d^3. Distance is a more important factor in tidal forces than in gravitational forces, which is the reason the moon causes a greater tidal effect than the sun. Distance basically negates tidal forces from the planets, even when aligned.
If the molten core changes from a sphere to an egg-shape and back again in response to lunar phases, it should produce a measurable wobble in the earth's rotation. I'll plead ignorance, but do you know if there is a measurable change due to changes in the core?
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
Thank you for sending the chart, I will try to digest it over the next few days.
I doubt your plea of ignorance will be heard. Like yourself, I would hope that there is a measurable wobble in the Earth's rotation,that would correlate to planetary alignment and maybe this could even be found to correlate with the normal daily lunar cycles, some stronger than others, depending on the tidal shifts? I am not sure if this has been done to any significant result but seems a logical approach to the problem.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Full Moon brings more earthquakes.
http://www.nasca.org.uk/Asian_disaster/asian_disaster.html#shape
An example of how potent an influence the Full Moon can be in sparking earthquakes can be seen from the Full Moon on the 24 th - 25th January. This was the first Full Moon after the South East Asia disaster and incredibly the area around the Nicobar Islands in the Indian Ocean - especially badly hit in the catastrophe - had at least 160 earthquakes above 5 magnitude in just 6 days. This included a particularly active period just after the Full Moon on the 27th of January when this vulnerable island chain was hit by over 60 earthquakes above 5 magnitude in just 24 hours.
Barely understood.
The magnetic field is a mysterious quantity that is still far from fully understood. What we do know is that the magnetic field may be connected to magma fields below the surface of the Earth so that changes to the field from celestial sources may lead to corresponding changes in magma flows. It is no coincidence that when high Solar winds cause severe geomagnetic storms there is almost always an increase in volcanic activity. Hence we believe that below ground activity with tectonic plates is heavily influenced by celestial phenomenon and also the different phases of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun which in turn cause turbulent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.
Colossal effects just becoming known.
In data released from NASA it was revealed that the magnitude 9 earthquake that devastated the Indian Ocean also had measurable effects on the shape of the Earth and also the length of each day. According to NASA the effects of this Earthquake were to say the least “not usual”. It shifted Earth’s mean North Pole, slightly altered the shape of the planet, and again slightly decreased the length of each day making the Earth spin just a little faster.
For the whole of this amazing story please turn to the following link:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/10jan_earthquake. htm?list142035
Obvious celestial link.
In our main feature which followed the December catastrophe we explained a likely link between the Tsunami disaster and celestial activity involving the Full Moon at Apogee just days after the Winter Solstice. Incredibly this latest South East Asian disaster also reveals a clear link to celestial forces. March 28th was just days after the Full Moon - five days from perigee (when the Earth is closest to the Moon) and only a week after the Spring Equinox. In addition it came at the culmination of a series of very powerful planetary alignments. This involved the close alignment of the Sun, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter. In other words an incredible alignment involving around 75% of the most powerful bodies in the Solar System.
At natures mercy.
As much as anything this earthquake confirms yet again that when the planets and the Moon align in a certain way at delicate and important times of the year we become more prone to the devastating forces of the natural world. Forces not defined by the upper limits of any human devised scale, but ones that operate to an arbitrary set of natural principles that take no regard of human plight and suffering and once again show just how vulnerable we really are.
http://www.nasca.org.uk/Asian_disaster/New_Asian/new_asian.html
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Andrew, that's interesting, but also copyrighted material from another site. Not so nice, especially not if it creates trouble for NakedScientist...
http://www.nasca.org.uk/Asian_disaster/New_Asian/new_asian.html
The living are the dead on holiday. -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
-
I notice that the first three links on the NASCA site are Atlantis, Polar Reversal (Earth flipping over), and time travel??? Sounds like their science may be a bit creative.
Using two or three incidents out of thousands to draw conclusions is statistically meaningless. Sort of like walking up to the edge of a large forest, spotting two elm trees and deciding that all the trees in the forest are elms. There is good earthquake data going back at least 20 years- look at all magnitude 6+ earthquakes and compare their timing to moon phases before drawing too many conclusions.
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
http://www.astro.oma.be/ICET/icetdb/7_41.html
The above link shows a fair amount of research has been conducted into this subject.
Your data is interesting and I think with a little refinement to include only locations around equatorial regions it would show a different pattern.
Andrew
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Just noticed that the tide has gone out much further than usual when taking dogs for a walk. The last time I saw this I made a prediction of either an earthquake or a volcanic erruption within 8 days of the event. I have been correct on numerous occasions so we shall have to wait and see whether the moon influences these events.
Andrew K Fletcher
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Looks like I was wrong about the full moon this time, but did notice a large rumbeling noise coming from my stomach.
However, just found the following, which might interest a few of you.
Can the Moon Cause Earthquakes?
John Roach
National Geographic News
May 23, 2005
Coast dwellers are accustomed to the daily rhythm of the tides, which are primarily lulled in and out by the gentle gravitational tug of the moon. Some scientists wonder whether the moon's tugging may also influence earthquake activity.
"The same force that raises the 'tides' in the ocean also raises tides in the [Earth's]crust," said Geoff Chester, an astronomer and public affairs officer with the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
Chester said the tides in the Earth's crust are subtle—on the order of a few centimeters, as opposed to the several-meter ocean tides.
"We live on the crust, so we don't really notice the deviation from what would be sort of the normal form of the geoid," he said. "So the effect is small but nonetheless there."
Full story:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake.html
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Hmmm Partial eclypse Monday October third 2005, followed by massive Earthquake
Hundreds killed in Kashmir quake
Damage is extensive, officials say
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4321490.stm
Now this may be a coincidence but I doubt it.
The quake's impact
Pakistan says more than 1,000 people may have died in a powerful quake that also hit north India and Afghanistan.
The quake in Kashmir had a magnitude of at least 7.6. The epicentre was 80km (50 miles) north-east of Islamabad.
Pakistan's interior ministry said several villages had been wiped out. A total of 200 are confirmed dead and 600 injured in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Rescuers are trying to reach dozens trapped in a collapsed building.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
The earthquake also happened at the same time as a coronal ejection from the sun. Coincidence?
Probably not any more coincidence than an earthquake ocurring five days after a full moon. Simple probability tells us that the odds of an earthquake striking within 8 days of a full moon are about 1/3- so, over time, we should expect that 1/3 of all earthquakes will meet Andrew's hypothesis.
I should think that this discussion belongs in geology, not an E=mc^2 thread?
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
Maybe the coronal ejection is also indicative of the full effects from planetary alignment? Further adding to the argument by supporting the theory rather than countering it.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Good that we've finally gotten back to astrophysics- something closer to E=mc^2 with this thread. I wasn't aware that coronal mass ejections were affected by planetary alingments (not that the planets were particularly aligned at the time).
What planetary forces do you suppose caused the coronal ejection (gravity, tidal, magnetic...)?
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
One possibility is that the countering of the suns gravity by the mass of the earth and moons combined pull, could have influenced the pressure holding the gasses around the sun. This would have to correlate with the alignment allowing for any delay of effect to causal effects that were observed. I admit, I do not have any ideas as to how this could be calculated. If indeed gravity has any delay effect, then this could be a way to measure the speed of gravity, providing we can agree that this is a possibility.
Over to you Bass
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Except--
The combined Earth/Moon gravitational pull on the sun is constant - at least if you ignore the fact that the Earth's orbit is not circular (aphelion/perihelion)- given the relative size of the sun and the earth/moon system.
Coronal ejections aren't limited to full or new moons (even with slight delays).
Prediction is difficult, especially the future. -Niels Bohr
-
Then the obvious place to look would be planetary alignments closer to the sun for coronal ejections.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Hmmm yet another eclypse preceded by and followed by more Earthquakes.
By VOA News
31 March 2006
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-31-voa5.cfm
Earthquakes Hit Western Iran, 66 Killed Iran's official news agency (IRNA) says 66 people were killed and nearly one thousand others injured in a series of earthquakes in western Lorestan province.
The report says the towns of Doroud and Boroujerd and scores of villages in between suffered heavy damage. It says rescue operations in the region are continuing.
It adds that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has instructed the interior ministry to mobilize all available resources to the stricken region.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States is prepared to offer humanitarian assistance to Iran's earthquake victims.
The series of tremors began around midnight local time and continued for several hours. The most severe tremor was a magnitude six quake that struck shortly before dawn.
Earthquakes are a common occurrence in Iran, which is located on several major seismic fault lines.
In December 2003, a powerful earthquake flattened the ancient city of Bam, killing at least 30,000 people.
Moderate undersea quakes off southwest Thailand
Staff and agencies
29 March, 2006
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stories/news-00167488.html
Sat Mar 11, 3:11 AM ET
BANGKOK - A series of moderate earthquakes has shaken the floor of the Andaman Sea off the southern coast of Thailand, although there is no immediate risk of a tsunami, disaster officials said on Saturday.
However, the National Disaster Warning center said Thais should monitor the news after the string of 31 earthquakes, measuring magnitude 4.0 to 5.3, hit about 400 to 600 kilometers of the southwest coast over the last two days.
The five southern provinces of Ranong, Phuket, Krabi, Satun and Phang-nga were those with the highest risk of being affected.
"We have informed people to watch out and follow the news closely," an official said. "We‘re closely watching the overall situation."
Scientists say undersea quakes have to measure in excess of at least 7.0 Richter in order to generate a tsunami.
2006-03-30 11:57:28 CRIENGLISH.com
http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/811/2006/03/30/176@68902.htm
March 31, 2006 3:05 PM
Strong earthquake jolts Tokyo area
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6585258&cKey=1143576334000
TOKYO (Reuters) - A strong earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 6.0 jolted the Tokyo area on Tuesday evening, the Japan Meteorological Agency said.
There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage and no tsunami warning was issued.
The quake, which struck at 10:33 p.m. (1333 GMT), was felt most strongly north of the capital.
The epicentre of the tremor was about 410 km (255 miles) below the seabed in the Pacific Ocean south of Japan's main island of Honshu, the agency said.
The quake originated about 430 km (270 miles) off the coast of Tokyo, Kyodo news service said.
The quake's deep focus meant the effect on the Japanese mainland was limited. The area most affected, north of Tokyo, registered readings of up to 3 on the Japanese intensity scale of 7 but there were no reports of injuries or damage there.
The magnitude of the earthquake was measured according to a technique similar to the Richter scale, but adjusted for Japan's geological characteristics.
Earthquake Hits Geermu in Qinghai
http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/811/2006/03/30/176@68902.htm
An earthquake measuring 5.2 on the Richter scale has hit Geermu in the western Chinese province of Qinghai at about 7:38 a.m. on Thursday, according to data from the Chinese seismological station network.
The epicenter is located at 35.5 north latitude, 95.4 east longitude.
The Office of the China Earthquake Administration (CEA) says the area around the epicenter is sparsely inhabited and there are no immediate reports of casualty or damage.
Local officials have travelled to the area to assess whether rescue efforts are needed. The CEA and the Earthquake Administration of Qinghai Province will implement an earthquake follow-up plan based on the circumstances of the disaster reflected from data gathered by local officials.
AFX News Limited
Earthquake jolts northeast Taiwan; no immediate reports of damage, casualties
03.29.2006, 04:03 AM
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/03/29/afx2629546.html
TAIPEI (AFX) - An earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter scale has jolted northeastern Taiwan, the island's Seismology Center said, but there were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.
The quake struck at 3.21 pm (0721 GMT), its epicenter five kilometers west of the coastal town of Suao in Ilan county and 71 kilometers underground.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/world/middleeast/31cnd-quake.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Iran Earthquake Kills 70, Destroys 330 Villages
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By NAZILA FATHI
Published: March 31, 2006
TEHRAN, March 31 — A strong earthquake hit Iran's western province of Lorestan this morning killing 70 people and flattening more than 300 villages, state television reported.
Brick houses were reduced to piles of rubble amid twisted steel, and television footage showed residents gathered in clusters gazing at what used to be their homes.
The 6.0 magnitude earthquake hit at 4:47 a.m. local time and lasted for one minute, the television reported. It was followed by two more tremors, measuring 4.7 and 5.1 on the Richter scale. Nearly 40 aftershocks were registered, the ISNA news agency reported.
Some 330 villages were leveled between 30 to 100 percent, state media reported. More than 1,200 people were wounded.
The quake's epicenter was in the mountainous area south of the city of Borujerd and north of Doroud, where most people were killed. The tremor was felt in the two neighboring provinces of Arak and Hamedan.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aTLaI1tYqo64&refer=asia
Indonesian Island Shaken by Magnitude-6.1 Earthquake (Update1)
April 1 (Bloomberg) -- A magnitude-6.1 earthquake shook the Indonesian island of Kepulauan Talaud early today, the U.S. Geological Survey reported on its Web site.
The earthquake struck in the vicinity of the island, about 2,430 kilometers (1,510 miles) northeast of Jakarta, at 5:14 a.m. local time, the agency said. Kepulauan Talaud is near Indonesia's Sulawesi island.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/01/content_4373239.htm
BEIJING, April 1 (Xinhua) -- Forty-two people were slightly injured in an earthquake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale which rocked Taiwan at 6:02 p.m. (1002 GMT) Saturday, Taiwan media said.
Most of the people were hurt by falling ceilings or goods in the houses, while some others were wounded as they run about in shock, according to a source with the Fire-fighting Bureau of Taitung County, where the epicenter was located.
The injured had been rushed to hospital, and are recovering, the source said, adding that no one was in critical condition.
The epicenter was initially determined to be over the coastal waters of southeastern Taiwan (22.9 N, 121.2E), causing minor casualties in the region.
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
Another full moon. Huge tidal changes here in Devon while walking the dogs along the beach, turning to Jude and saying in a few days time there will be another major earthquake....... Jude says you always say that when the tide is right out. However as the tide was as far out as we can remember, and seeing the exposed beach at Elbury Cove in Paignton Devon on the 14th November 2008, after arriving without even thinking about the tides. And having observed the low tide, predicted an imminent earthquake of considerable magnitude, we went home and waited, remembering the delay effect of a few days as discussed with Bass earlier in this thread.
Now we have the predicted 7.5 and 6.5 earthquakes in Indonesia on the television with a tsunami warning. It’s a damned shame that no one is taking this seriously.
Andrew K Fletcher
-
It’s a damned shame that no one is taking this seriously.
It is just remotely possible that it has been looked into in a bit more depth than your personal study of the events.
I should imagine insurance companies would have a very keen interest in such predictions.
-
Earth tide is the sub-meter motion of the Earth of about 12 hours or longer caused by Moon and Sun gravitation, also called body tide which is the largest contribution globally. The largest body tide contribution is from the semidiurnal constituents, but there are also significant diurnal constituents. There also semi-annual and fortnightly contributions due to the axial tilt. The use of the word tide is by analogy, and although the forcing is quite similar, the responses are quite different.
Earth tide effects
Volcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
If the molten core changes from a sphere to an egg-shape and back again in response to lunar phases, it should produce a measurable wobble in the earth's rotation. I'll plead ignorance, but do you know if there is a measurable change due to changes in the core ?
Nutation is a slight irregular motion in the axis of rotation of a largely axially symmetric object, such as a gyroscope or a planet...The nutation of a planet happens because the tidal forces which cause the precession of the equinoxes vary over time so that the speed of precession is not constant. It was discovered in 1728 by the English astronomer James Bradley ... simple rigid-body mechanics do not give the best theory; one has to account for deformations of the solid Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation
I think these deformations may also be responsible for the slight changes in day length throughout the year:
Earth would revolve slowest ("run slow") when most deformed.
-
RD Thanks for the post. This is happening far to often to be a mere coincidence.
The massive quake that hit Turkey shortly after the last UK eclipse was predicted in front of many witnesses on that very day, based on previous tidal shifts and earthquakes that followed them. With a study we could determine where the earthquake is most likely to occur based on tidal shift. This would require careful analysis of all past earthquakes and volcanic eruptions superimposed on a graph with tidal events. The data should be readily available from many years of seismological monitoring. It is important to allow up to 4 days following a large tidal shift. As discussed earlier there is a repeated surge of water and research suggests a surge at the Earth’s molten core, which is measurable over the same period.
The Earth being a stabilising force holding the mass together, Depending on the degree of weakness in the fault, there should be a delay from the initial tidal shift before the fault moves. There will always be a fault that will move on day one of a tidal shift.
A person once argued you can’t judge the whole planet based on your observation in Paignton. I ask where does the ocean end and where does it start. Of course we can predict events on the other side of the world based on the tidal shifts anywhere.
Much data would be required to put this together and collaboration with a university in Japan might be a smart move, as they do have a vested interest in predicting earthquakes along with the will and technology to do it.
Bass has a programme somewhere that could be modified to include a 4 day post Initial Tidal Shift, baring in mind that there will also be a gradual build up prior to the full moon or equinox.
I will send the thread link to a Japanese University to see if we can gain some assistance.
Andrew K Fletcher
-
Others have been looking at this relationship for some time...
Strong Earth Tides Can Trigger Earthquakes, UCLA Scientists Report
ScienceDaily (Oct. 22, 2004) — Earthquakes can be triggered by the Earth's tides, UCLA scientists confirmed Oct. 21 in Science Express, the online journal of Science. Earth tides are produced by the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun on the Earth, causing the ocean's waters to slosh, which in turn* raise and lower stress on faults roughly twice a day. Scientists have wondered about the effects of Earth tides for more than 100 years. (The research will be published in the print version of Science in November.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
[* this is somewhat misleading; Earth tides (Body tides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide#Body_tide)) would occur even if there was no water on Earth, because of Earth's liquid interior]
The classical theory of Earth tides first became established in 1905: ^ A.E.H. Love, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 82, 1905.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide#Body_tide
-
[* this is somewhat misleading; Earth tides (Body tides) would occur even if there was no water on Earth, because of Earth's liquid interior]
Yes: correlation does not prove a causal relationship.
The mass of water in the oceans is tiny compared with the masses of the core and mantle and the corresponding energy changes due to gravitational effects is insignificant.
Sea tides could be taken as indicators - but the astronomical situation would be a better indicator as it is unaffected by local details such as the profile of the coast, the seabed and the state of barometric pressure.
-
I have learned in this post more of what I have in high school... [;D] all these arguments open my mind. [:D].
I do not know if this correct; matter never disappears it just transforms. but if it is correct how is the universe going to freeze [???] , because if matter is converted by black holes to radiation, the radiation by diffusion will be move out to other places; ie Jupiter or the Earth adding up to the mass of these planets, and if these planets are eat by black holes would not others celestial bodies capture the radiation from their disintegration. I am kind of confuse now, would not that be redundant and never finish [???] [???] [::)] [???] [???] [:o] [???] [???] [>:(] [???] [???] [;D]
-
My PhD Thesis of nearly 30 years ago looked at the eruptive mechanisms of Mt Etna and, amongst other things, I considered the effect of earth tides on triggering eruptions of Etna and also a number of other European volcanoes. Despite some published research that suggested a connection I found the two events to be an excellent example of randomness - the published research used incorrect statistical methods to draw their conclusions. I also reviewed sunspot cycles and found those to be random as well.
It's possible the tides may trigger earthquakes but you need accurate statistical evidence.
-
Hi Erickejah
Apart from the black holes existing, this is precisely my argument. There is no end or beginning just a constantly evolving universe. As you state matter cannot be destroyed so must be converted, diffused across the universe and married up to another mass continually repeating the process forever. But rather than a black hole absorbing matter, consider a sun as the ultimate in planetary evolution. A mass so great after attracting matter that it becomes unstable and decay’s over countless years dispersing matter to other planets causing them to increase and become unstable to the point where they too become suns. It is a beautifully simple theory that encompasses everything into planetary growth and decay, which during the cycle involves the correct gravitational force to produce water from atoms and breath life into a desolate stable environment. But for how long?
Jupiter holds some important clues!
I have learned in this post more of what I have in high school... [;D] all these arguments open my mind. [:D].
I do not know if this correct; matter never disappears it just transforms. but if it is correct how is the universe going to freeze [???] , because if matter is converted by black holes to radiation, the radiation by diffusion will be move out to other places; ie Jupiter or the Earth adding up to the mass of these planets, and if these planets are eat by black holes would not others celestial bodies capture the radiation from their disintegration. I am kind of confuse now, would not that be redundant and never finish [;D]
-
Apart from the black holes existing, this is precisely my argument. There is no end or beginning just a constantly evolving universe. etc . . .
It was a popular theory before the evidence started to point to a Big Bang.
I'm surprised the 'new' theory isn't more attractive to you, as it flew in the face of established Science and was opposed vehemently by the cogniscenti for some time..
Shame about the evidence thing.
-
asome, [;D], i like this theory. [;D]
Hi Erickejah
Apart from the black holes existing, this is precisely my argument. There is no end or beginning just a constantly evolving universe. As you state matter cannot be destroyed so must be converted, diffused across the universe and married up to another mass continually repeating the process forever. But rather than a black hole absorbing matter, consider a sun as the ultimate in planetary evolution. A mass so great after attracting matter that it becomes unstable and decay’s over countless years dispersing matter to other planets causing them to increase and become unstable to the point where they too become suns. It is a beautifully simple theory that encompasses everything into planetary growth and decay, which during the cycle involves the correct gravitational force to produce water from atoms and breath life into a desolate stable environment. But for how long?
Jupiter holds some important clues!
I have learned in this post more of what I have in high school... [;D] all these arguments open my mind. [:D].
I do not know if this correct; matter never disappears it just transforms. but if it is correct how is the universe going to freeze [???] , because if matter is converted by black holes to radiation, the radiation by diffusion will be move out to other places; ie Jupiter or the Earth adding up to the mass of these planets, and if these planets are eat by black holes would not others celestial bodies capture the radiation from their disintegration. I am kind of confuse now, would not that be redundant and never finish [;D]
-
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0025&PredictionLength=7
Interesting Lunar event could cause significant earthquake from the 14th to the 16th of December, based upon peak low and high tides. Apparently the moon is closer today to the Earth
Tide table predictions for Torquay on link above.
Hope this prediction does not come true.
Earth set for full moon close up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7779294.stm A full moon is set to occur closer to the Earth on Friday evening than it has done for the past 15 years.
The Moon's elliptical orbit means its distance from the Earth is not constant.
It will be a little over 350,000km away as it passes over the northern hemisphere, which is about 30,000km closer than usual.
If the sky is clear it will appear brighter and lighter than usual, say astronomers.
Closest path
Friday's full moon could appear up to 14% bigger and 30% brighter than other full moons this year, Nasa said.
The Moon's orbit is elliptical, meaning it does not follow a circular but rather an oval path.
It is currently approaching the point where this oval orbit is nearest to the Earth.
-
Any significant earthquakes which could be linked to the moons unusually close proximity with earth?
Strong earthquake rocks areas near Kermadec Islands www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-09 16:27:40 HONG KONG, Dec. 9 (Xinhua) -- A strong earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale jolted the areas near Kermadec Islands in the Pacific Ocean at 0637 GMT Tuesday, the Hong Kong Observatory said in a news bulletin here Tuesday afternoon.
The epicenter was immediately determined by the Hong Kong Observatory to be at 31.1 degrees south latitude and 177 degrees west longitude, or 1,000 kilometers northeast of Auckland, New Zealand.
The depth of the earthquake was 35 km, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24800819-12377,00.html
From correspondents in Tokyo, Japan | December 15, 2008
Article from: Agence France-Presse
A MODERATE 5.3-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of the Japanese island of Honshu today, the US Geological Survey said.
No tsunami warning was immediately issued and there were no reports of damage.
The quake struck at 6:29 am (8:29pm GMT Sunday), with the epicentre off the island's east coast 296 kilometers from Morioka, the agency said. It was recorded at a depth of 31km.
Around 20 percent of the world's most powerful earthquakes strike Japan.
http://www.zeenews.com/world/2008-12-14/490990news.html
Moderate earthquake strikes off central Japanese coast
Tokyo, Dec 14: A moderate 4.5-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of central Japan on Sunday but there was no risk of a tsunami, the Japan Meteorological Agency said, and no immediate reports of damage.
The tremor struck at 7:25 pm (1355 IST), with the epicentre in the Pacific Ocean off Ibaraki prefecture, some 150 kilometres from Tokyo, the agency said.
It was about 40 kilometres below sea level, according to the agency.
Around 20 percent of the world's most powerful earthquakes strike Japan.
Bureau Report
4.8 magnitude earthquake recorded in Alaska
The Olympian, WA - Dec 13, 2008
AP • Published December 13, 2008 KENAI, Alaska – The Alaska Earthquake Information Center says an earthquake that had a preliminary magnitude of 4.3 was ...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/14/content_10501961.htm
Moderate earthquake jolts eastern Indonesia JAKARTA, Dec. 14 (Xinhua) -- A 5.5-magnitude earthquake shook Ambon in Eastern Indonesia's Maluku islands on early Sunday morning, without any injuries or damages reported yet, said the Indonesia Meteorology and Geophysics Agency quoted by the Jakarta Post. The quake occurred at 02:00 a.m. local time (1700 GMT Saturday),with the epicenter located 203 km northeast of Ambon and 10 km below the sea level. www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-14 11:40:28
Moderate earthquake rattles Greece, no injuries
TopNews, India - 13 Dec 2008
Athens - A moderate earthquake measuring 5.2 on the Richter scale shook central Greece on Saturday, but there were no immediate reports of injury, ...
5.2-Strong Earthquake Hits Greece Sofia News Agency
5.2-magnitude quake rattles central Greece International Herald Tribune
Quake shakes central Greece Athens News Agency
Times of India
all 11 news articles »
-
I did a google on tides and earthquakes.
I was amazed at the number of sites where the correlation between high tides and the occurrence of earthquakes was taken as a possible causal relationship.
Precisely the same fields / accelerations act on the Earth's lithosphere as act on the sea and the ratio of masses is vast. How can they consider the fleabite effect of the wafer-thin layer of water on the outside of the lithosphere and ignore the greater likelihood of a direct effect between Moon / Sun and the main masses which constitute the lithosphere, mantle and core?
Have I missed something - other than the statistics, which simply show a connection?
You might as well say that wildlife, which sometimes reacts to an imminent Earthquake, is responsible for it.
-
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/246418,earthquake-rattles-southern-sweden-parts-of-denmark.html
Stockholm/Copenhagen - An earthquake believed to be the strongest in a century shook southern Sweden and parts of neighbouring Denmark early Tuesday, geological institutes said. There were no immediate reports of any injuries caused by the moderate earthquake, but some walls may have cracked. Emergency services received numerous calls from anxious people who woke up fearing an explosion.
According to the Seismological Insitute in Uppsala, Sweden, the earthquake measured between 4.5 and 5.0 on the Richter scale, making it the strongest in Sweden since 1904.
The institute said the epicentre was some 60 kilometers east of the city of Malmo and about 9 kilometres north-east of Ystad.
The Danish capital Copenhagen and parts of northern Zealand were also affected.
-
Here is some information from the USGS. A friend of mine in Denmark commented about it, and in searching, I found that it was classified as a 4.7.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2008araj.php
-
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:11 PM
Earthquake hits Bengkulu
The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Tue, 12/16/2008 9:51 AM | National
A medium earthquake measuring 5.4 on the Richter Scale hit Bengkulu province Tuesday morning at 4:18 a.m., the Meteorology and Geophysics Agency (BMG) has said.
The earthquake's epicenter was 10 kilometers below sea level and did not trigger any tsunamis, as reported by tempointeraktif.com.
The earthquake could be felt by residents living across Sumatra, including Pagai Selatan Mentawai island, West Sumatra and Sungai Penuh up to Jambi. Residents of Muko-muko of Bengkulu reported especially strong tremors. (ewd)
-
Sophie.
The movement of the tides provides us with a measure of the strength of the pull from the moon. A lot more is going on with the mass of the planet for sure, but the tides give us an observation on how much influence is taking place. With careful analysis of location of maximum pull and the release of the pull we could using existing data determine where the earthquakes are most likely to take place using a computer model.
It is very useful to note that following a full moon high tides rise and fall further during the days that follow which could account for the common delay of several days before a significant quake hits. The molten core must also be affected as the moons gravity counteracts upon our own, but difficult to determine by how much. Better to use the tides as a measure.
I did a google on tides and earthquakes.
I was amazed at the number of sites where the correlation between high tides and the occurrence of earthquakes was taken as a possible causal relationship.
Precisely the same fields / accelerations act on the Earth's lithosphere as act on the sea and the ratio of masses is vast. How can they consider the fleabite effect of the wafer-thin layer of water on the outside of the lithosphere and ignore the greater likelihood of a direct effect between Moon / Sun and the main masses which constitute the lithosphere, mantle and core?
Have I missed something - other than the statistics, which simply show a connection?
You might as well say that wildlife, which sometimes reacts to an imminent Earthquake, is responsible for it.
-
following a full moon high tides rise and fall further
There are spring tides around full Moon AND new Moon. At new Moon, the Sun and Moon are on the same side.
My point was the implied causal connection which so many of the sites seem to imply.
You may be a bit 'hopeful' to suggest that "careful analysis" can do the job. The bulk behaviour would be predicatable if the structures were all uniform but the details of the lithosphere and the actual state of the convenction currents in the mantle are a bit of a mystery.
-
Aftershock from Swedish earthquake felt in Poland
http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/human-interest/?id=98205
Created: 16.12.2008 12:14
An earthquake of 4.5 to 5 points on the Richter scale rocked southern Sweden this morning – the aftershocks of which were felt in several regions of Poland – no one was hurt and nothing major has been reported damaged.
-
Implying what?
-
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/18/content_10525208.htm
Moderate earthquake jolts Gorontalo, Indonesia
www.chinaview.cn 2008-12-18 17:00:33 JAKARTA, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- An earthquake measuring 5.2 on the Richter scale jolted Gorontalo province, Indonesia, on Thursday, but there is no immediate report of casualties and damage.
The quake occurred at 11:03 p.m. local time (0403 GMT), according to information of the meteorological and geophysics agency.
The epicenter of the quake was located at 1.36 degrees northern latitude and 122.21 degrees eastern longitude, at a depth of 10 km below sea level, around 132 km southwest of Gorontalo and North Sulawesi, the agency said.
-
Not implying anything just providing some news on significant earthquakes taking place after the lunar event on the 12th of december as was suggested might be the case based on higher and lower than normal tides.
Implying what?
-
Fine but, having made a suggestion - a reasonable one, if you want to advance things you need to do some detailed statistical analysis (or find some which has already been done). There is no point in quoting an instance which supports your theory, at random. There may or may not be millions which don't support it. In any case, does it show a causal relationship?
That's the difference between a Scientific approach and the whimsical one.
-
From the common light bulb, to decay creations of photons, E=Mc^2 is very influential.
-
I don't understand what you are getting at. Is the mass change of a light bulb measurable?
-
No. Electrons with mass are converted into photon energy, hence, E=Mc^2.
-
Don't be daft.
-
How am i being daft? Do we not use electrons to power the bulge, in which the electrons are converted to make the energy that we observe leave the bulb? Do you know something i don't?
-
How am i being daft? Do we not use electrons to power the bulge, in which the electrons are converted to make the energy that we observe leave the bulb? Do you know something i don't?
Yes, he does. The electrons are not converted into anything.
-
So, please explain to me then, where the electron energy is being used up? And where do photons come from if they emerge from the technology of a light bulb?
I'm not so civy on electromechanics, but i am willing to learn.
-
So, please explain to me then, where the electron energy is being used up? And where do photons come from if they emerge from the technology of a light bulb?
I'm not so civy on electromechanics, but i am willing to learn.
Let's say that you power the lamp with a battery; then photon's come from chemical energy stored in the substances inside the battery. Releasing energy, those substances fall in a lower potential energy level and so their mass decreases; the missing mass goes away as electromagnetic energy from the lamp. The total number of electrons in the entire system doesn't vary (unless you use nuclear reactions or radioactive compounds...)
-
Let's say there isn't a battery, because i know how battery's work.
-
Let's say there isn't a battery, because i know how battery's work.
Ok, what do you want as source of electric power? Make a specific example, so I don't have to write many useless posts. [:)]
-
My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.
-
My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.
It doesn't change anything: in a power plant some kind of energy is converted into potential electric energy, which drives the electrons, which number stay constant; the electric energy is then converted into photons in the lamp. Where is the problem?
-
No problem. You proved my point either way. The electric energy is converted into photons, the original point i raised before people where trying to tie my shoelaces together.
-
No problem. You proved my point either way. The electric energy is converted into photons, the original point i raised before people where trying to tie my shoelaces together.
No, you didn't write that, you wrote:
"in which the electrons are converted to make the energy".
You certainly convert electric energy into photons, but you certainly don't convert electrons into photons: the electrons remain electrons and their number doesn't change.
-
The electrons, if they are converted into photon energy, then the electrons are no longer electrons.
Would you be clear about this please?
-
When water drives a water wheel around, the water isn't 'converted' into anything or 'used up', is it? The Kinetic Energy of the water transfers to Kinetic Energy of the wheel.
The electrons have energy when they emerge from the battery / generator / whatever and that energy is transferred in the light bulb as heat and light. The electrons end up with less energy (Electrical Potential).
The charges flowing round a circuit are like the links of a bicycle chain- they go round and round without changing in number. This is Kirchoff's First Law. His second law says, basically, that the energy put into a circuit is used up on the way round.
-
I am not familiar with Kirchoff's law. The electrodynamic course i took for electrical appliances was very tame. But i am somewhat puzzled. I understand that particles give up their energies, however, where do the electrons go if they are not converted wholey into photons?
-
I am not familiar with Kirchoff's law. The electrodynamic course i took for electrical appliances was very tame. But i am somewhat puzzled. I understand that particles give up their energies, however, where do the electrons go if they are not converted wholey into photons?
In the case of a battery, they go from one semi-cell to the other, where they bind with positive ions travelling in the opposite sense, so the net charge accretion is zero in every point. The law of charge conservation is a very important one, you should have known it.
-
Put an ammeter in all the possible places in a single loop circuit. It will measure the same values of current all the way round.
-
Yes, i understand circuitry. This is not my problem here. Its the words, ''electrons converted into photons'' that is puzzling me, and until i get my head around this, i will continue to ask without recourse.
-
Yes, i understand circuitry. This is not my problem here. Its the words, ''electrons converted into photons'' that is puzzling me, and until i get my head around this, i will continue to ask without recourse.
Don't know, maybe someone told you at school, you fixed that phrase in your mind and you haven't thought about it anylonger (or you where only thinking to electron-positron annihilation).
-
''electrons converted into photons''
is not a phrase that I have seen anywhere. If you are as old as I am, you are forgiven for mis-remembering what you heard!
-
My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.
It doesn't change anything: in a power plant some kind of energy is converted into potential electric energy, which drives the electrons, which number stay constant; the electric energy is then converted into photons in the lamp. Where is the problem?
It was here.
-
The phrase in your quote was ELECTRIC ENERGY is converted not ELECTRONS are converted. Something quite different!
-
My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.
It doesn't change anything: in a power plant some kind of energy is converted into potential electric energy, which drives the electrons, which number stay constant; the electric energy is then converted into photons in the lamp. Where is the problem?
It was here.
Ah, sight problems. Have you recently been to an ophthalmologist? [:)]
-
I apologize then. I was mistaken.
-
Spoken like a true gent!
-
Spoken like a true gent!
Agree [:)]
-
U.S top Scientist links moons orbit to earthquake in Japan
-
Alex Jones?
=
"It was astrologer Richard Nolle who linked the full moon of March 19 to natural disasters. He claimed that this "supermoon" would trigger massive earthquakes, volcanoes and powerful storms when it arrived. But scientists assure that this is not the case. ['Supermoon' Did Not Cause Japan Earthquake and Tsunami]
Jim Garvin (NASA), for example, said the moon's effects on Earth have been the subject of extensive studies.
"The effects on Earth from a supermoon are minor, and according to the most detailed studies by terrestrial seismologists and volcanologists, the combination of the moon being at its closest to Earth in its orbit, and being in its 'full moon' configuration (relative to the Earth and sun), should not affect the internal energy balance of the Earth since there are lunar tides every day," Garvin wrote.
But while the moon helps drive Earth's tides, it is not capable of triggering devastating earthquakes.
"The Earth has stored a tremendous amount of internal energy within its thin outer shell or crust, and the small differences in the tidal forces exerted by the moon (and sun) are not enough to fundamentally overcome the much larger forces within the planet due to convection (and other aspects of the internal energy balance that drives plate tectonics)," Garvin explained."