[Kryptid]

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.

That doesn't mean that the explosion contains less energy (which appears to be what Pasala is arguing).

[jerrygg38]

Kryptoid: That doesn't mean that the explosion contains less energy (which appears to be what Pasala is arguing).
GG: What you say is obvious. I was just wondering about the effect of the energy. If the bomb was below the surface when it exploded it should do more damage. If above the surface it will do less damage.

[pasala (OP)]

As per Einstein Space is no longer flat as assumed by Newton, it can be pulled, pushed and warped by matter.  Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity, which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

“Matter tells spacetime how to curve and curved space time tells matter how to move”.  This is the core of Einstein General theory of relativity. Gravity is highest where space time is most curved and vanishes where space is flat.

In Einstein General theory of relativity, curvature of space time plays key role.  If we place mass anywhere in the universe, it will curve the space time around it.

Einstein Field Equation:

Gμν        =  Geometry of spacetime, Gravitational field
8πTμν    =   The source of curvature/gravity field, matter and energy density.

So,
Gμν        =  8πTμν   

Curvature of space time at a place is determined by the matter and energy density at that place.  Einstein has set certain parameters, the density, the momentum, mass/energy, which determine curvature at a place.

Ok, let us take our Earth.  It is a huge mass and it curved the space time around it.  In other words there is strong curvature/gravity against space time of Earth. 

So, we can equate this curvature/gravity with density of Energy.  Suppose, if there is no energy density at a particular place, space time turns out flat.   

But at present we are of the opinion that Sun energy is the only source to Earth and there is no potential energy. 

If there is no energy density in our solar system, how mass is curving the space time. 

It is true and known fact that there is strong Gravity against Earth and it is appearing before us and we are practically experiencing it.

In case, if our thinking is correct, no energy density, Gravity must be created or space time is curved by mass during day time, when Sun energy reaches us and must vanish or turn into flat during night time. 

This is not happening so, there is Gravity during night time also. 

Is our thinking wrong or Einstein wrong?. 

Important point on Curvature of Spacetime:

1.  As per Einstein if we place mass anywhere in the universe, it will curve the space time.  Ok, here in his equations, he equated Gravity field with energy density.  So, without potential energy at a place, no mass will curve the space time, in other words Gravity. 

2.  No mass will curve the space time in empty or flat space time. 

3.  Finally, all masses will curve space time, within specific area of solar system, where potential energy is pooled up.

4.  This is the reason, if an asteroid, making its journey, never stops, until it enters solar system. Energy density curves the space time and slows down its movement.  In case, if the asteroid is accelerating with lot of speed, slows down, crosses the solar system and makes its journey, till it reaches another solar system.

Gravity, equation with acceleration:

Einstein’s imagination gave birth to general relativity’s core idea as he gazed out his office window while he was supposed to be evaluating patents. “All of a sudden I was struck by a thought,” Einstein later said. “If a person falls freely, he will certainly not feel his own weight.”

01  Gravity on Earth is equated to 9.81 (m/s^2)
02  Earth is rotating 460 meters per second.

It is true that it is several times higher, however, how Gravity or curvature against Earth is intact.

Psreddy

[pasala (OP)]

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

I certainly seem to recall you arguing that an atomic bomb's power would be less on the Moon than on Earth...

[pasala (OP)]

Mr Kryptid

Let me tell in detail since Gravity is having roots in all of them:

In a nuclear explosion there is  rapid release of energy from a high-speed nuclear reaction. The "yield" of a nuclear weapon is a measure of the amount of explosive energy it can produce. Thus, a 1 kiloton nuclear weapon is one which produces the same amount of energy in an explosion as does 1 kiloton (1,000 tons) of TNT. Similarly, a 1 megaton weapon would have the energy equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear bomb needs about 33 pounds (15 kilograms) of enriched uranium to be operational.   

When chain reaction starts, total energy is multiplying.  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.   Whenever I go by these theories, these things bothers my mind.   

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.

For Einstein, space is no longer flat as assumed by Newton, but it can be pulled, pushed and warped by matter.  It is rather immaterial if we say that matter curves the space time.  There is a medium by which matter is pulling, pushing space time.  For that Einstein is very clear in his math’s, he equated space time curvature or Gravity to Energy density. 

But, at present we are of the opinion that there is no potential energy or energy density on Earth.  Ok, then how the matter is curving the space time.  In case, if Sun energy is alone responsible then space is curved during day time and flat during night time.   But it is not happening so. There is strong Gravity at all times.

The Yield from a nuclear weapon mainly depends on:
01  The quantity of fissile material used or the quantity of potential energy released.
02  The potential energy or energy density in the space time.
03  Rapid release of energy or the speed with which the energy is freed.  Since, if the process slows down, space time absorbs the shock and neutralizes it. 

Ok, if an atom bomb is detonated total energy packed there in is freed.  In normal conditions, it cannot do wonders.   Now, space time start playing important role.  There is strong Gravity or curvature on our Earth.  Since total energy is released within short time, it pushes the existing energy and try to make room.  In other words it is an additional energy into the space time.  It charges the existing energy, resulting raise of radiation.  It is true that Gravity is matter blind.  So, energy density against the space time of Earth is high.  Most of the charge is passed on to the 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.

Ok, if the same bomb is detonated in space, outside Earth’s atmosphere.  Here energy is not influenced by any matter.  Energy is of at free state.  It curves the space time of the bomb. But there is no gravity, in other words strong density of energy.  Energy released by atom bomb, pushes or charges energy in the space time.  Since density of energy in the space time  is weak, effect is weak.  It moves in all directions equally. 

Ok, let us cross our solar system, here there is no source of energy and thus there is no potential energy.  This is perfect vacuum.  It is impossible to detonate an atom bomb.  When a uranium-235 absorbs a neutron and splits, whatever energy freed moves out unabated.  There is no chain reaction and radiation.

If a nuclear weapon is exploded in a vacuum-i. e., in space-the complexion of weapon effects changes drastically.  First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely. Second, thermal radiation, as usually defined, also disappears.

In a vacuum, energy density is weak.  When an atom bomb  is detonated, energy freed, fails to charge the outside energy.  There is no radiation and thus chain reaction.  The glass used is not allowing free movement of outside energy. 

Suppose, you have not created vacuum, but covered it by glass as is done in the case of fire.  In                               “in distinguishability”, it is clear, within cabin there is no change of gravity and it is not equal to acceleration.  But for the space ship Gravity is equal to acceleration.  Here it is clear that Gravity can be packed.  So, there is strong potential energy packed within the chamber.  But glass is not allowing free movement of energy.  So, energy density, space time of the bomb helps in raise of radiation.  However it is weak.  Chain reaction slows down.

I strongly believe that in the case of Fire, explosions, light, whatever we see with our naked eye is deceiving.  Total energy is not coming from them.  There are no energy boosters, inverters, transformers.  Truly, it is not mechanical. 

Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

At present we are of the opinion that total energy is coming from the atom bomb only. 

That's not an opinion. It's the scientifically observed reality.

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.

The answer has been given to you in past threads. There is no mystery there.

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.

The glass is indeed obstructing something: the flow of new oxygen to the fire.

But, at present we are of the opinion that there is no potential energy or energy density on Earth.

Citation needed.

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[jerrygg38]

Parsala said:
PMr Kryptid
As per Einstein Math:
"This, in a nutshell, then, is the General Theory of Relativity, and its central premise is that the curvature of space-time is directly determined by the distribution of matter and energy contained within it. What complicates things, however, is that the distribution of matter and energy is in turn governed by the curvature of space, leading to a feedback loop and a lot of very complex mathematics. Thus, the presence of mass/energy determines the geometry of space, and the geometry of space determines the motion of mass/energy"
GG: Einstein's work is an excellent mathematical solution for space and time. As you point out it does not tell us why. based upon the effects of gravity.Einstein looks at the universe and models a solution based on the effects of gravity. Why does it appear that space time bends? Does it really bend? I will post that today.

[pasala (OP)]

“Matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move”.

It is the basic principle behind Einstein's General Relativity, which linked, for the first time, the phenomenon of gravity with that of spacetime and relativity.

Place a mass down anywhere in the Universe, and the space around it will curve in response.

No doubt Einstein’s imagination is  extra-ordinary.   

Now, science developed a lot and we are sending satellites into deep space.  Let us imagine that we have placed a satellite “X” in the space.   Ok, now, compare in between Earth and satellite “X”.

01 Both Earth and Satellite “X” have curved space time around them.
02 Due to curvature both of them are in inertial position.
03 Earth is now started rotating against its axis, but satellite “X” is not.
04 If matter warps the spacetime, in the case of satellite “X”, if not Gravity, there must be symptoms, at least.
05 In the case of satellite, why curvature fails to move it.
06 One part of Einstein, “matter tells space time how to curve” is complete.  But the other part, “curved space time tells mass how to move”, is not accomplished.

Curvature grips mass and throws it into inertial position.  This is the key point.  This is not Gravity and it is only a part of Gravity. 

Einstein explained in a lecture in 1922:
“I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly a thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity”.

This, thought experiment, is simple, yet extra-ordinary.  Let us say, a person ”Y” is standing at the top of the building.  If he dives, he will simply transform away from gravity.   As long as “Y” is at the top of the building and also on Earth there is strong Gravity.  By this Einstein equated:
                       “Gravity to acceleration”.

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.  Still why curvature is intact. 

There is something which is protecting Earth, not only Earth but all other planets.  In the absence of this protection, curvature will be simply eroded.  It is paving way for Gravity, without which Gravity is incomplete. 

Yours
Psreddy

[jerrygg38]

Pasala said
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.  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.

[pasala (OP)]

Pasala said
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.  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.

GG
I am talking about "Gravity to acceleration".  If the space craft accelerates more than 9.806 meters per second, space time curvature around the space craft is lost.  It is now gravity free.  When Earth is spinning 460 meters per second, how curvature/gravity is intact. 

Please try to understand.

Psreddy

[Kryptid]

But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth.

It is. Gravity is what holds the Earth together.

It is true that Earth is rotating 460 meters per second, which is several times greater than Gravity. 

No, it is not several times greater than gravity. The centrifugal force at the equator is much smaller than the gravitational force. Look up the equation for centrifugal force and do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

Please try to understand.

You need to understand that velocity is not acceleration.

[pasala (OP)]

"The principle of equivalence says that gravity is not a force at all, but is in fact the same thing as acceleration.

Einstein’s ground-breaking realization (which he called “the happiest thought of my life”) was that gravity is in reality not a force at all, but is indistinguishable from, and in fact the same thing as, acceleration, an idea he called the “principle of equivalence”.

When the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

When 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.

[pasala (OP)]

    But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth.


It is. Gravity is what holds the Earth together.

"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".
Psreddy

[pasala (OP)]

When 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.

Oh, Kryptid.
Ok I will try

[Bored chemist]

I had proposed 8 to 9 layers

On what basis?

[pasala (OP)]

I had proposed 8 to 9 layers

On what basis?

Sure, I will try in the later session.
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

"When Gravity or curvature itself is in question" how it holds Earth.

It isn't in question. Gravity doesn't disappear. By the way, you missed another question mark.

Further it is not comparison to centrifugal force to gravity but "Gravity to acceleration".

Then why did you bring up the spinning of the Earth? Rotational acceleration causes centrifugal force.

[pasala (OP)]

One’s Einstein said:
“I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly a thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity”.

It is true that as long as the person is at the top of the building there is Gravity.  When he dives, due to acceleration, curvature or Gravity disappears. 

Now, before going to spinning of Earth, let us take the example of cylindrical carnival ride.  The cylinder is rotated faster and faster until the acceleration eases and the movement stays constant. But, once the speed is constant, you still feel the accelerated motion, you feel yourself being pinned to the outer edge of the ride. Cylindrical ride that accelerated motion can warp space and time.

It is here that Einstein connected the dots to suggest that gravity is the warping of space and time.

Here, centrifugal force is just one side of the coin only.  It is true that, cylindrical carnival, passengers all curved the space time around them.  As the carnival picks up faster, since gravity is equated to acceleration, curvature or gravity against carnival and passengers weakens. 

We are comparing carnival to Earth.  In fact there is strong curvature or Gravity against Earth also.  As the carnival pickup, it is true that curvature weakens.  What about Earth?.  This is one of the key point in “what exactly is gravity”. 

When a person dives from high place, he will definitely transform away from Gravity.  What about the cylindrical carnival?.  As long as the carnival is at inertial position, strong Gravity hooked it.  As it accelerates, gravity weakens and acceleration eases.

When Earth is at inertial position gravity hooked it.  It is known fact that Earth is spinning at the rate of 460 meters per second.   Ok, how Gravity is intact at that velocity.   

In the case of carnival, if Gravity is intact at that speed/acceleration then only it will be able to warp the space time.  But there is no scope for any gravity at all.  As the Gravity weakens, carnival acceleration eases. Passengers at the edges travel full circumference, escapes from gravity and are moved to edges due to air and other forces.

The effects of being in a gravitational field are indistinguishable from the effects of being in an accelerated frame of reference. 

Indistinguishability tells us that Gravity can be packed in a closed frame.  Warped space time is already present in the space time, which can be packed or moved from place to place.  Closed frame of reference tells us that there is something working as frame protecting gravity on Earth. 

If cylindrical carnival possess gravity in acceleration, if am sure mine idea or thinking is wrong.

Yours
Psreddy