0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jeffrey, you do see that this is a testable proposition? So how would you like to set up a experiment, proving it?
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 12/01/2014 07:24:48Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.By definition, temperature T = heat / (mass x specific heat capacity) = H/M From the quote, H = k/rConsider an infinitesimal element at the centre of a solid sphere. M-> 0 and r = 0 since the element is contiguous with the rest of the sphere, so T -> infinity But the temperature of the rest of the sphere is finiteTherefore we can extract an infinite amount of energy from a cannoball by placing a thermocouple at its centre with the reference junction anywhere else.Seems (a) testable and (b) unlikely. Furthermore, in an infinite homogeneous universe, any point can be considered the centre, the surrounding mass is infinite, and the distance to any other point is finite, so the temperature of every point in the universe is infinite. Not what we observe.
This only applies to the convergence of gravitation inward to a point source. You don't know the details of my theory
QuoteThis only applies to the convergence of gravitation inward to a point source. You don't know the details of my theory I don't need to. Your statement was quite clear, that as a result of your theory any mass in the centre of a sphere will heat up, and the closer it is to the surrounding shell, the hotter it will get in inverse proportion to the separation. So let the separation tend to zero and see what happens. Well, your hypothesis has been tested and in the absence of permanently molten cores in cannonballs or infinite thermal energy being generated from any lump of rock, it seems to be flawed.
Now that is very interesting indeed. The further away from the surrounding mass, the greater the heat generated. So a small planet in an infinite universe will get very hot indeed. Congratulations! You have found the source of climate change - it's a ripple from the Big Bang, and thanks to cosmic expansion, it's going to get worse and worse.
But all I've done is take your first assertion at face value and asked what the temperature would be in the middle of a dense solid object like a cannonball. Seems like a sensible thing to do. Then you changed your assertion so I asked what the temperature would be in the middle of a nebulous object, say on a small planet in a large universe. Nothing ridiculous about either extrapolation as we are familiar with both scenarios. If the observations don't agree with the calculations, the hypothesis is ridiculous. That's science.
So do you think a cannon ball would have enough mass to show a significant effect?
Quote from: jeffreyH on 15/01/2014 17:55:24So do you think a cannon ball would have enough mass to show a significant effect? No, but you do, or at least that is what your statement clearly implied. If, as you originally stated, the heat generated is inversely proportional to the distance to the inside of the shell, then it must be infinitely hot at the centre of a solid. Or, if as you subsequently stated, the heat is directly proportional to the distance, it must be infinitely hot at the centre of an infinitely tenuous universe.Now this isn't a matter of subtle measurement: we (or at least you) are predicting infinite quantities of heat.Your latter suggestion, however bizarre, does at least explain the creation of the universe. The amount of heat at the centre of an infinite vacuum must be infinite, according to your theory, so the universe will indeed have begun as a big bang in the middle of nothing. Full marks, and collect your Nobel Prize at the door!
While I agree with you if there is a direct link between the photon and the graviton, I don't believe it's a gluon type of nature. The photon has a spin of one, in the graviton has a spin of 2. They are capable of traveling together with no interference, they would even have the same frequency. They are released, reflected or absorbed. at the same time.