Spin plus aether equals mass
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
-- Updated April 21st, 2015, 8:57 am to add the following --
What you do not understand Leo is that is I used the term Singularity as you advise I would have to call a Singularity as I see its existence the "Wayne Particle".
Now is that better? Can now make sense of the Wayne Particle.
Leo, If I followed your advice I would have not reason to post.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
My explanation for the internal heat of the Earth is the compression of its matter caused by gravity. Naturally, if total mass increases this heat will increase as well. And the idea is that perhaps this high-energy environment creates new matter. The idea of energy being converted into matter is nothing new. The only thing missing is the details of how it might occur in the cores of planets and moons.Obvious Leo wrote:Do you deny that the magma is a liquid whose molten state is maintained predominantly by beta decay? The planet's interior is actually losing mass and not gaining it or else the source of this heat has no explanation. The relative concentrations of the various radioactive elements required to account for this heat have been empirically verified and concur with planetary formation theory relative to their various half-lives. A molten magma is subject to tidal forces as well as magnetic disturbances. In view of this inescapable fact what would you expect to happen to the solidified crust which has formed on top of it? Geology is complex because the relative motions of matter on planetary bodies is complex by its very nature so I've deliberately kept my questions simple. I can make them a hell of lot harder if you wish.Atreyu wrote:Perhaps it needs to be so "rigorous" and complex because it's false.
What does modern science say about the internal heat in the cores of the gas giant planets versus the heat in the cores of the smaller rocky planets? And what do they say about the internal heat in the cores of the rocky planets versus their satellites?
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Sorry. That doesn't work by a huge margin. Almost all the internal heat of the earth is generated by beta decay. However gravitational compression does make a contribution.Atreyu wrote: My explanation for the internal heat of the Earth is the compression of its matter caused by gravity.
It's not just the details that are missing. There's an entire theory missing, to say nothing of the existing theories which would have to be flushed down the toilet.Atreyu wrote:The idea of energy being converted into matter is nothing new. The only thing missing is the details of how it might occur in the cores of planets and moons.
I'm not sure. I'll do some homework and let you know.Atreyu wrote: What does modern science say about the internal heat in the cores of the gas giant planets versus the heat in the cores of the smaller rocky planets? And what do they say about the internal heat in the cores of the rocky planets versus their satellites?
Regards Leo
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
I still haven't watched the expanding earth videos so can't comment on them yet, but just a little comment on that last post:
My understanding is that the heat energy in the centres of planets is partly the gravitational potential energy released as they formed and partly the decay of radioactive isotopes. I'm not sure what the proportion is.
You mentioned that the idea of mass and energy equivalence is nothing new. This is true. Objects which have greater gravitational potential energy (i.e. they are separated from each other by great distances) have greater mass than objects with less gravitational potential energy (that are closer together). So the dust and gases that went on to form the Earth (for example) were initially far apart. As they fell together they lost gravitational potential energy. It was converted to heat energy. So you'd think that they would, in total, become less massive. But as they became hotter their molecules started moving around quickly. And things that are moving have greater mass, so they kept that extra mass after all! They just converted the mass/energy from one form to another - from potential to kinetic energy.
This is called the "gravitational binding energy" of the Earth. According to a Wikepedia entry that I'm not allowed to quote (you can find it by googling "gravitational binding energy") it is roughly 1032 joules. To convert that to mass units you'd have to use E = mc2. If you do that you get about 1015 kgs. So, before the Earth formed, its constituent parts had 1015 kgs more mass than they would have after it had formed, if they had cooled back down to their original temperature.
If you compare that to the total mass of the Earth (6 X 1024 kgs) you can see that it's of the order of about a billionth of it. So not much, but interesting, It means that as the Earth cools and slowly releases that mass/energy to space (in the form of infra-red photons) it will, in so doing, lose about a billionth of its mass.
- Wonko the Sane
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: April 22nd, 2015, 7:32 am
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
While DarwinX has made some interesting observations, I find his grasp of physics to be a bit lacking. Sorry.
Discussing plate tectonics, while interesting, does not further explain your original post. (plate tectonics is simply the study of a boundary condition between matter, our planet, and space. A bit like studying the patterns in the skin of a ball of boiling custard. Or the movements of particles on a soap bubble)
Here's my take on this.
Any matter in our 4-dimensional universe (spacetime) has mass. Mass warps spacetime. Gravity is the result. Gravitation works over vast distances but only has a noticeable effect the closer you get to the lowest-energy point, the singularity at the centre of rotation. An axis must form around a lower energy state. (viewed from above the "pole", the equator would have a slightly higher kinetic energy than the pole itself due to the rotation - angular momentum). Not a huge difference, granted. But enough to cause energy fluctuations at the surface. (tectonics) Gravitation, while being a weak force in QM (small scales, the subatomic), it describes quite well the movements of matter on larger scales. On scales that are more extreme, such as the very large (stars, black holes, galaxies), gravitation can become strong enough to affect low-mass, high-energy particles. (See "gravitational lensing"). When you reach huge masses and densities, like black holes, gravitation is so strong that not even light can escape, another boundary condition. This supports the idea of photons having mass (at least some, however small)
(And if photons are ever found to have a quantifiable mass, however small, could this be the "Aether" or the universe's missing mass that we're looking for?)
Most of the science we study on this planet is true, at a distance of X from a singularity of mass y. (where X is the distance to the centre of rotation of the earth and y is the mass of the earth)
Your individual results for experiments performed outside these constraints may vary the rate of change measured.
Feel free with the constructive criticism and requests for elaboration. You can't learn without them.
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
- Location: Australia
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Beta decay is a proton turning into a neutron. This confirms my theory; the proton is being squeezed and loses its spin energy and turns into a neutron. The loss of spin energy is converted into heat energy, as it is on the surface of the sun. Thus, there is only one sub-atomic particle which exists in 3 states. The current atomic model being incorrect.Obvious Leo wrote:
Sorry. That doesn't work by a huge margin. Almost all the internal heat of the earth is generated by beta decay. However gravitational compression does make a contribution.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Not expanding, growing
-- Updated April 22nd, 2015, 1:04 pm to add the following --
DarwinX post #1
"[quote] I propose that the spinning nature of all mass suggests that without spin, matter cannot exist.'[quote]
Wayne wrote; Spin exists as part of the process used in the creation of matter, existence, being.
-- Updated April 22nd, 2015, 8:19 pm to add the following --
Obvious Leo post #131 wrote;
[quote]"Wayne. The singularity has a precisely defined meaning in physics and therefore you'd be well advised to chuck it out of your lexicon if you wish to be understood. You can't just use commonly accepted terms and then simply apply your own personal meaning to them without looking like a fruitloop" [quote ]
Wayne wrote;
Where can I find a precisely defined meaning in physics of "The Singularity".
I have said before that I thrive on criticism to the point even of being called a fruitloop.
I was a little disturbed by your post at first but only a little, just enough to go to Wikipedia and look up the meaning of Singularity.
I best first say that I appreciate you post so that you will not be to annoyed at me by the time you finish this post.
I found no precisely defined meaning of the word Singularity, in fact I found many definitions of the word Singularity and guess what, there were numerous definitions of Singularity that were more of an inadequate, incomplete, example of Singularity as I see it to be.
Mathematical singularity; a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable.
Isolated singularity, a mathematical singularity that has no other singularities close to it.
Removable singularity; a point at which a function is not defined but at which it can be so defined that it is continuous at the singularity.
Gravitational singularity; a region in space-time in which tidal gravitational forces become infinite.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Am I wrong on this? Is it not true that if you keep compressing matter together you will get heat as a by-product? And is it not also true that if this compression were great enough, i.e. if there was enough mass being compressed, that we could not get the same heat energy which we observe in the Earth? I am imagining the enormous mass of the Earth being compressed in its core, and, in spite of not knowing the actual math and formulas involved, I can easily imagine that that alone could at least possibly explain all of the Earth's heat. I'm visualizing the heat as being the greatest in the core, where the density and compression are the greatest, and then that heat moving away from the core, which gives us the heat we see in the magma, not to mention that this outward movement of heat could also at least partly explain volcanoes, geysers, earthquakes, as well as the obvious rifting that we see on the ocean floors and in places such as the Grand Canyon.
Let us suppose that we built a sphere 3 feet in diameter using typical soil - dirt with some small rocks mixed in. The soil of our sphere is packed together very tightly. Let us also suppose that we have a heat source of a certain intensity placed in the core of our sphere. What would we eventually see happening near the surface of our sphere? Would we not see many of the same things we see on the Earth? The heat in the core would conduct outward, eventually popping open the surface (volcanoes, geysers). Also, the heat would surely, given enough intensity, cause the surface of our sphere to crack and split (earthquakes and rifts).
At any rate, I'm going to look into this theory (beta decay) in depth so I can talk about it more intelligently. But as of right now I'm very suspicious of it, if for no other reason than its vast complexity in the face of this much more simple explanation (compression in the core).
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).[113] The major heat-producing isotopes within Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232.[114] At the center, the temperature may be up to 6,000 °C (10,830 °F),[115]and the pressure could reach 360 GPa.[116] Because much of the heat is provided by radioactive decay, scientists postulate that early in Earth's history, before isotopes with short half-lives had been depleted, Earth's heat production would have been much higher. This extra heat production, twice present-day at approximately 3 byr,[113] would have increased temperature gradients with radius, increasing the rates of mantle convection and plate tectonics, and allowing the production of uncommon igneous rocks such as komatiites that are rarely formed today.[117]
Present-day major heat-producing isotopes[118]
Isotope Heat release W/kg isotope Half-life years Mean mantle concentration kg isotope/kg mantle Heat release W/kg mantle 238U 94.6 × 10−6 4.47 × 109 30.8 × 10−9 2.91 × 10−12 235U 569 × 10−6 0.704 × 109 0.22 × 10−9 0.125 × 10−12 232Th 26.4 × 10−6 14.0 × 109 124 × 10−9 3.27 × 10−12 40K 29.2 × 10−6 1.25 × 109 36.9 × 10−9 1.08 × 10−12
The mean heat loss from Earth is 87 mW m−2, for a global heat loss of 4.42 × 1013 W.[119] A portion of the core's thermal energy is transported toward the crust by mantle plumes; a form of convection consisting of upwellings of higher-temperature rock. These plumes can produce hotspots and flood basalts.[120] More of the heat in Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is through conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs under the oceans because the crust there is much thinner than that of the continents.[121]
-- Updated April 23rd, 2015, 4:11 pm to add the following --
My apologies that the heat release table didn't cut and paste properly but it's not really important. There is a wealth of good literature available on this subject from most university on-line geology libraries.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
Did you read my previous post about the gravitational binding energy of the Earth? Did you get what I was saying there?
-- Updated Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:32 am to add the following --
A quick point about the first paragraph of your post: you still seem to be hung up on this idea that Quantum Mechanics only applies to the "very small". Just a couple of quick things to remember: If there really was this boundary between "the small" and "the big", and if radioactive decay (of which beta decay is one example) occurred only in the former world, we wouldn't know anything about it. We also wouldn't have nuclear power stations, nuclear weapons or the Sun. We also, in fact, wouldn't have the compression that you're talking about. The laws of physics which describe the electrostatic force which causes the pressure inside the Earth that you're talking about are the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
One more thing: I still think it's important to get the basics before moving on. In order to understand why the gravitational collapse of the dust and gas which created the Earth generated heat, and how much heat it created, you need to first get to grips with the concept of energy, and specifically kinetic energy and potential energy. If you can do that then, as I was trying to illustrate in my previous post, you can work out for yourself how much heat energy would have been created by the accretion of the Earth and, since Leo has already quoted the amount of energy that the Earth loses per second, it would be possible to calculate whether this initial input of energy at the Earth's formation would have been enough to explain the Earth's current core temperature.
So, armed with the right tools, you don't have to take anybody's word for it when they tell you that most of the Earth's heat energy is generated by radioactive decay. You can work out for yourself if that seems feasible.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
This is why it's called thermo nuclear. Thermo means heat. And the reason a star needs a certain amount of mass before this process starts is because more mass means a stronger gravitational force, which means more "gravitational binding energy" (as mentioned earlier) and therefore more heat, and higher pressure and therefore higher density.
In the case of a thermonuclear weapon (a hydrogen bomb) the high temperature and pressure is supplied by a fission bomb (an atom bomb).
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Spin plus aether equals mass
There are other "failed stars" called brown dwarfs. These are much bigger than Jupiter but still too small for thermonuclear fusion to have started in their cores. They're fairly hot due to the primordial heat from their creation, but not as hot as a "red dwarf" - the smallest kind of real star.
-- Updated Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:03 am to add the following --
Note to avoid confusion: I think I may have slightly misused the term "main sequence" in my previous post. I meant stars that are still shining by turning hydrogen into helium, as opposed to stars that have run out of hydrogen and are fusing helium into heavier elements.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023