C Squared

More
20 years 11 months ago #8108 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
GD, I don't believe the physics and proof of this stuff is above you as you claim. That is a cop out claim. If you want to kick around ideas that is not a good way to get feedback.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 11 months ago #8138 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
Matter loses energy. I don't know how simpler this can get.
The term "Gravity" should be relegated to the past such as "ether" was in the early 1900's.

Here is a definition of "ether" from a 1952 dictionary which was probably a reprint of an earlier book:

"The supposed subtle atmosphere in space beyond the Earth's atmosphere; a hypothetical medium of extreme tenuity and elasticity supposed to be diffused throughout all space (as well as among the molecules of which solid bodies are composed), and to be the medium of the transmission of light and heat."

Is Gravity, gravitons, dark energy and the sorts the ether of today?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 11 months ago #8141 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
If what you say is true that matter loses energy than as you say it has less entrophy, right? It is simple logic less energy leads to lower temperature and so less entrophy. So, if what you sat is true you have proven entrophy is reduced over time, right? BTW, you have changed to topic of this thread a few times why not stick to one topic here and start another thread for other topics.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 11 months ago #8201 by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
When I say losing energy, I mean POTENTIAL ENERGY.

The organized energy that is the atom loses potential energy constantly, the end result of which it transforms into disorganized energy (heat).

Here is an example:
The ground we walk on at the surface of the Earth, is composed of atoms (organized energy) which have a higher potential than the atoms 50 Km below our feet (disorganized energy, lower potential, higher entropy).

Matter many kilometers below our feet have less potential because of their position in this huge mass of matter (of varying entropy)that we call Earth.

This is because the potential of the atom tends towards zero towards the center of massive bodies.By doing so it releases its energy (more heat).

The more massive, the faster the atom loses potential energy because the greater is the potential difference between the center of the body and its surface.

Gravity is the continual change in potential of the atom. This is why the atom accelerates.

Is this not straight forward and simple?

I must say that after trying to convey this concept over the past years, that I have totally failed.
Time to move on to other things......

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #8713 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Returning to the original focus of this thread E=mc2 and F=ma can be used in new concepts that seem to clear up at least one problem in the modeling of photons. The commonly accepted way to define a photon is by stating its energy as E=hf where h is Planck's Constant and f is the frequency of the energy bundle. This way of defining the photon is wrong as both Einstein and Planck knew; what E=hf defines is a bundle of photons. I define the photon as a unit of energy equal to one ev. This definition of the photon works much better in decoding well known data that seems contrary to common sense. The light wave model is a view of the Planck bundle and the particle nature of light is the unit of one ev. F=ma then is the force of the photon and increases in proportion to the frequency of the electromagnetic wave and E=mc2 is one ev. In this way the data makes a little more sense.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #8525 by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from

<i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I think mass is transformed into energy in a lot of ways that are misunderstood. Anytime a match is lit there is a transformation of some mass into energy but we think of that as a dumb ol chemical reaction. But, make a fission bomb and geewiz we have mass transforming into energy. The reverse is more subtile and so less noticed than explosives but plants transform energy into mass. This is also done in particle accelerators. The main problem is how the information is understood by the densest stuff on Earth-the space between the ears of humans.
_____________________________________________________________________

Jim

i agree with you but i'm not sure if it is misunderstanding or not asking deeper. for instance i have asked this question to chemists before and all i got back some talk of reactions which is not what i'm after. the question is,what is going on inbetween the electron shells and the nucleous of the atom,there is suppose to be all this space here,surely there is more than empty space here.

my thoughts are that perhaps energy is being pasted between the electrons and the nucleous and that this causes certain configurations within this space,for instance the quick release in a explosion of energy etc.

just a thought.

i'm not really able to make a comment on what you guys are talking about here,but i'm following the best i can.sort of understanding but only bits.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.352 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum