• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ask a physicist anything. (8)

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And yet I was right about adiabatic expansion. An idea that is beyond your comprehension. I have not fully checked your claim. You only required one, my second example may have been incorrect.

As was your first example incorrect.

Adiabatic process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Adiabatic processes are primarily and exactly defined for a system contained by walls that are completely thermally insulating and impermeable to matter; such walls are said to be adiabatic."

The solar wind is NOT contained by walls that are thermally insulating and impermiable to matter. is that beyond "your" comprehension?

"
Adiabatic heat occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within an adiabatic cylinder. This finds practical application in Diesel engines which rely on the lack of quick heat dissipation during their compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it.
Adiabatic heating also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere when an air mass descends, for example, in a katabatic wind or Foehn or chinook wind flowing downhill over a mountain range. When a parcel of air descends, the pressure on the parcel increases. Due to this increase in pressure, the parcel's volume decreases and its temperature increases, thus increasing the internal energy."


So one can use it to describe descending air against a mountainside which is insulating and impermeable to air.





And once again Justa proves he cannot read articles nor does he know what a strawman argument is. That article is only about material very close to the Sun. That is not what we were discussing. Please try to understand the difference.

You are just making yourself look extremely foolish SZ.





Nope, you are using a poor analogy here. What did you forget, again? You forgot that the steam is in an atmosphere. Try the same experiment in a vacuum and you will see the steam continuing to accelerate due to adiabatic expansion.

Sorry, we have already shown your idea of adiabatic expansion is totally off-base, with no justification whatsoever. Try again.



This is so obviously wrong that I will just refer you to the Ideal Gas Law. Again, adiabatic expansion says that even after leaving the source a gas will continue to accelerate.

Re-learn what it is first, your use of words beyond your understanding shows you lack any understanding of what they mean. You simply think throwing out big words will fool people.



This is just too hilarious coming from someone who thinks that "plasma" is a good enough explanation for anything.

Even more hilarious from a guy that thinks dark matter is the answer to everything. At least we know for a fact plasma makes up 99% of the universe. A fact you ignore in favor of Fairie Dust.




Spamming your replies with processes that do not even apply to the situation at hand fools only you.

It's the electric field that accelerates particles, not the magnetic field. magnetic fields can do no work on a particle, except to alter its course. learn the difference. That is why particle accelerators use electric fields to accelerate, and magnetic fields to guide the particles.

Strong enough to accelerate charged particles despite the gravity of the entire sun pulling on them. Funny how that works. And that it reduces with distance is known, which is why they do not accelerate much beyound the orbit of Jupiter.



Oh, it burns, it truly does.

Oh i bet it does, especially having to admit you were wrong, and then wrong again with your contrived explanation about adiabatic expansion that we just showed how totally unjustified and wrong even mentioning that is space was.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, Justa, adiabatic heating is primarily done in cylinders. Luckily for me I was talking about adiabatic cooling. From the very sight you linked:


Adiabatic cooling can take place in space too. Guess where the energy form cooling the gas goes?

Once again you did not even read your own source properly.

As I said, it burns.

ETA: I almost forgot, the reason I emphasized primarily is that secondarily it can be atmospheric. It is very difficult to get adiabatic heating in space, but there are even places where that occurs. That process does not occur anywhere near our orbit, luckily.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cactus Jack

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2011
1,459
113
somewhere
✟24,779.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Wow. Just wow. Is there a single thread on here in which people can refrain from calling each other stupid?
It's a private thread. Even I cannot get my questions answered.
(I tried unsub'ing from this thread but that doesn't seem to work)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others


You didn't read it, it works because there are mountains below, which are impermeable. Go ahead, quote the rest of the paragraph, pseudoscience guy.

We are not discussing cooling, but the requirement that heat increase, not decrease, don't try to switch the subject. We are talking about your attempt to apply the opposite to the solar wind.

"Adiabatic heat occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, e.g., a piston compressing a gas contained within an adiabatic cylinder. This finds practical application in Diesel engines which rely on the lack of quick heat dissipation during their compression stroke to elevate the fuel vapor temperature sufficiently to ignite it. Adiabatic heating also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere when an air mass descends, for example, in a katabatic wind or Foehn or chinook wind flowing downhill over a mountain range. When a parcel of air descends, the pressure on the parcel increases. Due to this increase in pressure, the parcel's volume decreases and its temperature increases, thus increasing the internal energy."


No adiabatic heating occurs in a gas without an impermeable barrier. That was a sad attempt at a strawman SZ. I am ashamed of you that you even attempted such a diversion, and you should be ashamed of yourself as well, for attempting to mislead others in your attempt to save your Fairie Dust theories from falsification.


We are not discussing cooling of the solar wind where transfer of energy through a non-permeable barrier is required, but the increase in temperature, the further one gets from the source of the heat.


Give up your Fairie Dust attempts already, you are wrong, plain and simple, and your diversionary strawman tactics does you no justice.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Jarvis

Quoth The Raven
Mar 24, 2013
675
38
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟23,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
New question:

The earth has a gravitational pull on everyone on its surface. The Earth spins on its axis and this spinning creates a centrifugal force acting against the pull of gravity.

Say my weight is 100 pounds at the moment, what would my weight be if the Earth stopped spinning? Would the difference be noticeable?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others


For about every 100kg you would weight about 1/3 kg less at the equator. Unless you lived on the arctic circle, in which case you would notice no difference at all.

The earth only rotates about .0007 RPM

The radius of the earth is 6,380 kilometers or 6,380,000 meters.

The velocity of the land is 463 meters/second. (2*pi*r/(24*3600))

Your mass is 100 kg.

So square the velocity, multiply by mass and divide by radius:
463^2 * 100 / 6,380,000 = 3.37 newtons.



The acceleration toward earth due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. The acceleration away from earth due to its rotation is 0.034 m/s^2. So if the earth were not revolving and you weighed yourself on the equator, the scale would think that your 100kg body weighs about a third of a kilogram more.


100kg = about 220 lbs., so you would weight roughly a little less than 1/2 lbs more if you weighed 100 pounds.


This applies at the equator, as the closer to the poles you get, the less centrifugal force you experience. Think of a playground carousel, the closer to the center, the less force you experience.


If the earth was rotating at just 1 RPM you would be slung out into space.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Jarvis

Quoth The Raven
Mar 24, 2013
675
38
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟23,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Many Thanks - JJ
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,476
45,594
Los Angeles Area
✟1,013,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)

More info.

The exact answer would depend upon your latitude, but the difference would be greatest at the equator. In addition to the effects of rotation, the shape of the earth also makes a difference. Since it bulges at the equator, you're further from the center of the earth, which also makes you a tiny bit lighter.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Jarvis

Quoth The Raven
Mar 24, 2013
675
38
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟23,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

More thanks and thanks for the link.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single



And on a related note the peak of Mt. Everest is not the furthest from the center of the Earth. That honor belongs to Mt. Chimborazo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo_(volcano)
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Many Thanks - JJ


Of course this does not take into effect the difference that the scale would read, being it would not be undergoing those same centrifugal forces. Which is why scales must be adjusted based upon their distance from the equator, just as clocks must be adjusted. A standard 1kg weight has been calibrated at sea level on the equator, so would technically be greater than 1kg at the poles. But for simplicity sake we use the same calibration everywhere.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single

No, a kilogram would be a kilogram anywhere. Even in 0 G. A kilogram is not a unit of weight.

Now a 9.807 Newton weight would weigh a different amount at the equator than it would at the poles. But its mass would still be one kilogram.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No, a kilogram would be a kilogram anywhere. Even in 0 G. A kilogram is not a unit of weight.

Now a 9.807 Newton weight would weigh a different amount at the equator than it would at the poles. But its mass would still be one kilogram.

Wrong, one kilogram at the pole weighs more than one kilogram. The reason you think it weighs the same is that your scale also changes. Just as a clock on the equator reads a different time than one on the pole, but while at the pole you yourself notice no difference in its rate.

This is because not only the clock changes, but every single atom that shares that frame of reference.

Weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" For example, an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons on the surface of the Earth, and about one-sixth as much on the Moon. In this sense of weight, a body can be weightless only if it is far away from any gravitating mass."

It is matter that does not change. A one kilogram mass will always have the same amount of matter, but not necessarily the same weight. Just as under acceleration your body has more energy and more felt weight, but not more matter.


And the kilogram is definitely a unit of weight.

Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump [of dough]") is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg)....

As mass is difficult to measure directly, usually balances or scales are used to measure the weight of an object, and the weight is used to calculate the object's mass. For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, general relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction."

Therefore a one kilogram mass can have several different weights, depending on its nearness to a gravitational source and its velocity. But even under acceleration it has more energy, but the amount of matter that it contains does not increase. The kilogram is the basic unit of weight or mass. A one kilogram weight on the pole will weigh more than one kilogram, as it will have a greater gravitational attraction due to less centrifugal force. However, any scales used to measure it will report no difference, since any standard kilogram test weight will also weigh more.


Curious About Astronomy: Does your weight change between the poles and the equator?

Just as you would weigh more at the poles, so would a one kilogram test mass. Only the amount of matter it contains will never change. But matter is not mass, and mass is not matter. Mass is equivalent to energy, and energy is equivalent to mass. So therefore the gravitational attraction of bodies is due to energy, not to matter. Energy may be converted to matter and matter may be converted to energy, but the mass of on object depends solely on its energy content, which may vary independent of the amount of matter it contains. All matter contains energy, but may contain more or less depending on its velocity, and therefore that same amount of matter may weigh more or less, or have more or less mass due simply to velocity or nearness to another gravitating source.


Common Weights and Measures (table) | Infoplease.com

Weight (Mass)

Metric System

1 milligram  =  1/1,000,000 kilogram  =  1/1,000 gram1 centigram  =  1/100,000 kilogram  =  1/100 gram1 decigram  =  1/10,000 kilogram  =  1/10 gram1 gram  =  1/1,000 kilogram1 dekagram  =  1/100 kilogram  =  10 grams1 hectogram  =  1/10 kilogram  =  100 grams1 kilogram (basic unit of weight or mass)1 metric ton  =  1,000 kilograms
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single

Your own source clearly says that a kilogram is a unit of mass. It says that it may be difficult to measure. But if you use a balance scale and well calibrated weights you are comparing the force from gravitational force and that will be the same regardless of where you are as long as there is at least a smidgeon of gravity.

In SI mass is measured in kilograms. Weight is measured in newtons. Your weight will change but your mass will not. A kilogram is a kilogram regardless of where you measure it on the Earth. Your scale may give you the wrong answer if it is spring based, but that is not the fault of the object being weight.

So if you weighed something properly, that is on a balance scale or a properly calibrated spring scale, it would mass the same regardless of where you were on the Earth. A kilogram would always read one kilogram. Its weight would change but not its mass.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
And to be clear, a kilogram can never weigh one kilogram since it is a unit of mass. Scales are often mistakenly marked that way, that is the fault of the scale maker. A one kilogram mass will weigh more in newtons on the pole than on the equator. Its mass will be the same.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,476
45,594
Los Angeles Area
✟1,013,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Justa: "And the kilogram is definitely a unit of weight."

Justa fails high school physics again. And, as usual, digs himself deeper and quotes numerous sources he doesn't understand as a smokescreen.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Justa fails high school physics again. And, as usual, digs himself deeper and quotes numerous sources he doesn't understand as a smokescreen.


And yet you provide not one single source to back your claim I am incorrect, except of course your baseless claim. I see you providing not one single source at all as a matter of fact. Is this because you have no science that says otherwise, except your claims it does?
 
Upvote 0