0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GG: The atom bomb on the moon is interesting. It seems to me that the lower gravitational field and the lack of an atmosphere will produce less harm locally to the moon. More of the energy will radiate outward into space.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on 22/02/2020 13:50:13GG: The atom bomb on the moon is interesting. It seems to me that the lower gravitational field and the lack of an atmosphere will produce less harm locally to the moon. More of the energy will radiate outward into space.That doesn't mean that the explosion contains less energy (which appears to be what Pasala is arguing).
No, potential energy stored within atom bomb never changes, whether it is on Earth or Moon or in space in between. Total output mainly depends on energy density in the space time of the bomb. As the density increases curvature increases, small amount of energy freed, pushes and charges the outside energy, resulting raise of radiation.
At present we are of the opinion that total energy is coming from the atom bomb only.
If it is true, where and how huge energy is stored in a fissile material. If the total energy is from the fissile material, how it is stable in normal condition.
Ok, before going deep, let me tell you one simple incident that happened in my high school studies. One day teacher performed a simple experiment. He lighted a candle, closed it by a glass and when the candle put off, he started explaining how things need oxygen to burn. Immediately, I questioned, why don’t you think that the glass is “obstructing” something. Nobody listened to me.
But, at present we are of the opinion that there is no potential energy or energy density on Earth.
If the same bomb is detonated on Moon. Here Gravity or curvature or energy density is weak. Though same amount of energy freed, energy density in the space time is weak. Weak charge is passed on to the surface. Since Gravity or curvature of space time is 1/6th, naturally yield also.
Pasala saidBut, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth. It is true that Earth is rotating 460 meters per second, which is several times greater than Gravity. Still why curvature is intact. GG: I do not understand what you are trying to prove by this statement. Gravity is 9.806 meters per second squared which is an acceleration and you are comparing it to a surface velocity. If you take the velocity squared and divide it b y the radius of the earth you would get a tiny number. Gravity is much stronger than the outward force that could tear the earth apart.
But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth.
It is true that Earth is rotating 460 meters per second, which is several times greater than Gravity.
Please try to understand.
When the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth.It is. Gravity is what holds the Earth together.
Quote from: pasala on 08/03/2020 16:55:26When the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.Was that a question? If so, there needs to be a question mark at the end. Even if it is a question, I don't understand what you're asking. I can't make sense of that sentence.
I had proposed 8 to 9 layers
Quote from: pasala on 10/09/2019 18:38:15I had proposed 8 to 9 layers On what basis?
"When Gravity or curvature itself is in question" how it holds Earth.
Further it is not comparison to centrifugal force to gravity but "Gravity to acceleration".