Members Randy Van Sykes Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by SorrowAblaze Mabe the heat ( energy ) in the center of the Earth creates, at least in part, our gravitational pull ... Lemme do a quick Google reasearch ... Nope...the moon has no molten core, yet has a gravity pull to it...I believe it's simply to do with mass...more mass, more pull...my penis pulls chicks towards me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members potaetoes Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by SorrowAblaze Mabe the heat ( energy ) in the center of the Earth creates, at least in part, our gravitational pull ... Lemme do a quick Google reasearch ... nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by blargh Newtonian phsyics are far from a complete picture. I'd be very surprised if there was a single person here with a good enough grasp of quantum mechanics to give you a satisfactory answer, but that's where it lies. Originally posted by potaetoes newtonian physics starts to break down when you start talking about atoms and subatomic particles, which is essentially where magnetism lives. gravity is a whole 'nother can of worms that flies in the face of newtonian physics (ironic, eh?) I have to agree with those posts. Newtonian physics only works reliably once you know your datum. If you are discussing the very nature of your datum, *poof* ...there goes Newton rolling over in his grave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Van Sykes Nope...the moon has no molten core Been there? Pics ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by potaetoes newtonian physics starts to break down when you start talking about atoms and subatomic particles, which is essentially where magnetism lives. gravity is a whole 'nother can of worms that flies in the face of newtonian physics (ironic, eh?) Strong Nuclear Force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Van Sykes Nope...the moon has no molten core, yet has a gravity pull to it...I believe it's simply to do with mass...more mass, more pull...my penis pulls chicks towards me! Now this force I want more of!!!!!!!!But speaking of mass being an attractor... Where does that endless supply of energy come from. It can't be simply be explained away by saying something is big and thereforeit has a specific gravity. It has to have a power supply to continue its work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SorrowAblaze Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 After a quick 30 second or so research ->The questions about the origin of gravity get blurry to me after looking at other planets. We aren't even sure if Saturn has a core ( surface ) at all! And Saturn's gravity is holding onto 34 moons ... What is holding all those gases and liquids together? Hey - mabe all planets are really weak black holes that gathered enough material to form into what we now know - and the constant force of the hole pulling is our gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members squealie Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy I am there!!!!!!!!!!!!! What nights or night are you playing? Friday and Saturday or just one? I will walk right up and demand to talk to the guitarist! I promise to come too! Gary Awesome!We're at the 'Towers AAs' on Sat night. And I'll be butchering Whitesnake, Ratt, Accept and Pantera solos until 2AM. Looking forward to meeting you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BrendanO Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by blargh Newtonian phsyics are far from a complete picture. I'd be very surprised if there was a single person here with a good enough grasp of quantum mechanics to give you a satisfactory answer, but that's where it lies. Hence Hawkings attempts at the Grand Unification theory relating sub-atomic physics (stuff developed by Einstien, Schroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg et al) and Newtonian physics. Which are quite different, and sometimes seemingly incompatible. Quantum physics is a strange land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Randy Van Sykes Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Bumble Been there? Pics ? I watch NOVA and all those science shows...I love that stuff.I have a DVD set called Stephen Hawkings World...about newly discovered galaxies, trying to explain black holes, radical new evolution theories... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members squealie Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Have you guys read: Relativity, Weird Al Einstien Brief History of Time, Hawking Hyperspace, Michio Kaiku (sp) ? They drone on for volumes trying to explain this stuff to the layman, or worse, me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Bumble I have to agree with those posts. Newtonian physics only works reliably once you know your datum. If you are discussing the very nature of your datum, *poof* ...there goes Newton rolling over in his grave No discussing datum here... Just facts...There is nothing in Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Randy Van Sykes Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy Now this force I want more of!!!!!!!!But speaking of mass being an attractor... Where does that endless supply of energy come from. It can't be simply be explained away by saying something is big and thereforeit has a specific gravity. It has to have a power supply to continue its work. Laws of the universe...if we could tap into that energy it would never cost anyone a penny to use it... Nothing is endless...they say the universe will collapse on itself one day when it's done expanding...then will there be a new beginning? ...where will that energy come from, to create another big bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by squealie Awesome! We're at the 'Towers AAs' on Sat night. And I'll be butchering Whitesnake, Ratt, Accept and Pantera solos until 2AM. Looking forward to meeting you! Freakin' DEAL!!!!! I look forward to it too! Hope ya don't mind a 45 year old unabashed 80's music lover there...lolGary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SorrowAblaze Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy This is a creation of energy from nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SorrowAblaze Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Van Sykes Laws of the universe...if we could tap into that energy it would never cost anyone a penny to use it...Nothing is endless...they say the universe will collapse on itself one day when it's done expanding...then will there be a new beginning? ...where will that energy come from, to create another big bang? What'll be in the area the current universe is in, once it starts collapsing? Do ya think a pilot in space could ever run into the edge of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy But speaking of mass being an attractor... Where does that endless supply of energy come from. It can't be simply be explained away by saying something is big and thereforeit has a specific gravity. It has to have a power supply to continue its work. I think this question will never be properly answered unless we understand and know how the universe was really created. There are any theories, most popular being the Big Bang Theory obviously, but even that has come into question recently. To understant the energy flow in our solar system, we have to relate it to the energy flow in our galaxy and the entire universe, and only then can we arrive to a conclusion which wholistically takes into account all the universal variables ever existant. Unless we reach that far back into history and outer space, all we're left with is theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Bumble You've got some points a bit confused I think.The correct definition of work is "a force moved through a distance". By that definition, a magnet sticking to a fridge is not doing any work at all since no motion occurs, and can thus stick indefinitely [ignoring loss of magnetism which occurs due to completely unrelated processes]. I honestly don't think I have anything "confused". Physical labor typically involves moving heavy objects or material from one place to another. The heavier the object and the further it is moved, the more energy must be expended in the process. The Work Function is merely an attempt to describe this fact using a simple equation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Van Sykes I watch NOVA and all those science shows...I love that stuff.I have a DVD set called Stephen Hawkings World...about newly discovered galaxies, trying to explain black holes, radical new evolution theories... I really must grab one of his books! Inspiring stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy I honestly don't think I have anything "confused".Physical labor typically involves moving heavy objects or material from one place to another. The heavier the object and the further it is moved, the more energy must be expended in the process. The Work Function is merely an attempt to describe this fact using a simple equation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Redsweater Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 The electromagnetic force is far far FARRRR greater than the force of gravity. Also, "Energy is a measure of being able to do work.[1] This is a fundamental concept pertaining to the ability for action. In physics, it is a quantity that every physical system possesses. This quantity is not absolute but relative to a state of the system known as its reference state or reference level. The energy of a physical system is defined as the amount of mechanical work that the system can produce if it changes its state to its reference state; for example if a liter of water cools down to 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffy Posted December 1, 2005 Author Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by Bumble Yes sir, good point. I apologise for that post as it may seem a bit patronising, but I never imagined this thread would be going into such deep levels of scientific questioning. Neither did I honestly... But there are so many holes in every theory that is is unreal. Science does not seem to be interested in exploring the holes in Newtonian Physics. They don't explaining why Newtonian physics is still used by our space program today while all but completely ignoring Einstein's General Relativity Theory. It seems to be completely at odds with Newton's theory and yet not one scientist seems to question why one works for one thing and the other for another set of circumstances. I am in a complete quandry. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Redsweater Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Physical labor typically involves moving heavy objects or material from one place to another. The heavier the object and the further it is moved, the more energy must be expended in the process. The Work Function is merely an attempt to describe this fact using a simple equation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bumble Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 You know what riffy? You got me fired up all about this stuff again! Thank you for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted December 1, 2005 Members Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by riffy Neither did I honestly... But there are so many holes in every theory that is is unreal. Science does not seem to be interested in exploring the holes in Newtonian Physics. They don't explaining why Newtonian physics is still used by our space program today while all but completely ignoring Einstein's General Relativity Theory. It seems to be completely at odds with Newton's theory and yet not one scientist seems to question why one works for one thing and the other for another set of circumstances. I am in a complete quandry.Gary No offense, but what makes you an authority on the direction of science and what scientists think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.