Ask a physicist anything. (8)

Seipai said:

I have noticed that he does that on the evolution versus creation forum here too.

Click to expand...

And you as well provide no scientific sources saying otherwise. so your claim is even more baseless and not worth consideration.

Justatruthseeker said:

And you as well provide no scientific sources saying otherwise. so your claim is even more baseless and not worth consideration.

Click to expand...

I just realized... You are 51 years old? I always pictured you as about 25.

Justatruthseeker said:

And you as well provide no scientific sources saying otherwise. so your claim is even more baseless and not worth consideration.

Click to expand...

With gross mistakes no scientific sources are really needed. For example if someone denied that a rock would fall if it was tossed in the air what sort of scientific sources would be needed? And last time that I corrected you there was no need to. You supplied the links. You did not understand them.

Why do you provide so many links, many of them on different topics, that you do not understand? For example you provided a link about a possible very early mammal that was demonstrably transitional. When scientists cannot decide what group to put an animal in we know it is transitional. And that had nothing to do with your claim that science had supposedly debunked Darwin's Tree of Life.

PsychoSarah said:

I just realized... You are 51 years old? I always pictured you as about 25.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have forgotten more things than these children on here have ever thought of knowing. What they don't realize is I grew up with the theories that they are attempting to tell me what they say, and know what they say, and know what they have changed in an attempt to cover up the associated problems.

I also know they will never show one single paper that says mass does not change with energy content nor that matter is mass. Matter contains mass, which is caused by energy. So in reality the gravitational force is nothing but an energy relationship, one we simply have not figured out yet. E=mc^2 and mc^2=E. So in reality that in itself disproves dark matter, as no particle can exist that does not have energy, yet all particles that have mass (energy) radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum. Even the neutron, the so-called electrically neutral particle has a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment.

The biggest kicker is they must ignore twice the mass of the galaxy itself exactly where they want dark matter to be so their theory is not falsified.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

So if you want to call plasma surrounding our galaxy dark matter before we had the technology to detect it fine, just do not expect one to continue to believe in Fairie Dust, when the missing mass is no longer missing, but quite visible now with our advancements in technology.

And lets not forget all that mass in dust (plasma) in the galaxy as well.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

And lets not forget all that mass of newly discovered stars.

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

Nor all the other stars never accounted for.

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

the only thing missing is astronomers continue to ignore all the mass recently found in their theories.

Justatruthseeker said:

Yes, I have forgotten more things than these children on here have ever thought of knowing. What they don't realize is I grew up with the theories that they are attempting to tell me what they say, and know what they say, and know what they have changed in an attempt to cover up the associated problems.

I also know they will never show one single paper that says mass does not change with energy content nor that matter is mass. Matter contains mass, which is caused by energy. So in reality the gravitational force is nothing but an energy relationship, one we simply have not figured out yet. E=mc^2 and mc^2=E. So in reality that in itself disproves dark matter, as no particle can exist that does not have energy, yet all particles that have mass (energy) radiate in the electromagnetic spectrum. Even the neutron, the so-called electrically neutral particle has a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment.

The biggest kicker is they must ignore twice the mass of the galaxy itself exactly where they want dark matter to be so their theory is not falsified.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

So if you want to call plasma surrounding our galaxy dark matter before we had the technology to detect it fine, just do not expect one to continue to believe in Fairie Dust, when the missing mass is no longer missing, but quite visible now with our advancements in technology.

And lets not forget all that mass in dust (plasma) in the galaxy as well.

New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com

And lets not forget all that mass of newly discovered stars.

Scientists Find 200 Sextillion More Stars in the Sky | Fox News

Nor all the other stars never accounted for.

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

the only thing missing is astronomers continue to ignore all the mass recently found in their theories.

Click to expand...

You may have other mistakes in this post, but I noticed one glaring one. And it seems to be related to the question about the hollow in the sphere.

Let's assume the scientists are correct and that there is no plasma flow causing the galaxy to rotate faster than its observed mass should. The gas surrounding the galaxy would have no effect on that rotation. It would not speed it up at all. That is very obvious from the shell theorem which is an offshoot of Gauss's Law. Any spherically distributed matter will have no gravitational effect on the matter within that sphere:

SparkNotes: Gravitation: Potential: Newton's Shell Theorem

There you go, a reference.

Justatruthseeker said:

And the kilogram is definitely a unit of weight.

Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

This amused me. You confidently state that the kg is a unit of weight, then you immediately link to the Wikipedia page for mass

And one more point. I have seen physicists very often do problems where the relativistic nature of mass must be accounted for. In fact you got Einsteins equation wrong.

The correct equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2


Where E is the energy of the system, m is the mass, c is the speed of light and p is the momentum:

Do You Know the Rest of Einstein's Most Famous Equation?

Usually that is simplified to E - mc^2 since we usually are not dealing with relativistic speeds. Physicists tend to ignore relativistic effects when the momentum of a system is low on a relativistic scale since there is always a margin of error for any experiment. Why do all of that extra work when the amount of energy is less than the error in the observations?

Seipai said:

And one more point. I have seen physicists very often do problems where the relativistic nature of mass must be accounted for. In fact you got Einsteins equation wrong.

The correct equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2


Where E is the energy of the system, m is the mass, c is the speed of light and p is the momentum:

Do You Know the Rest of Einstein's Most Famous Equation?

Usually that is simplified to E - mc^2 since we usually are not dealing with relativistic speeds. Physicists tend to ignore relativistic effects when the momentum of a system is low on a relativistic scale since there is always a margin of error for any experiment. Why do all of that extra work when the amount of energy is less than the error in the observations?

Click to expand...

Actually you got it wrong. His original equation was nothing like we know it today. ΔE0=Δm and E0=m

The Only Known Photograph of Einstein Deriving his Famous E=mc2 Equation

The original formula dealt with the rest mass of a body, forgotten in modern textbooks.

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/einsteins-derivation-of-emc2/

Oafman said:

This amused me. You confidently state that the kg is a unit of weight, then you immediately link to the Wikipedia page for mass

Click to expand...

That is pretty bad. I mean, the distinction is taught in grade school that kilograms are a measure of mass.

Justatruthseeker said:

Actually you got it wrong. His original equation was nothing like we know it today. ΔE0=Δm and E0=m

The Only Known Photograph of Einstein Deriving his Famous E=mc2 Equation

The original formula dealt with the rest mass of a body, forgotten in modern textbooks.

Einstein’s derivation of E=mc^2 | What's new

Click to expand...

Mine is still correct and yours is still wrong. That was written using a geometrized unit system:


Geometrized unit system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a short cut often used in relativity where several constants are set to 1, c or the speed of light being one of them. The equation, and yes even mine was simplified a bit was the one you see at 2A. It has components for both the rest mass and the momentum of a moving particle.

But it is still a very interesting article.

Anyone who has taken high school physics knows that mass and weight are different things, and measured in different units. Sources are not needed when you make a blunder so obvious.

essentialsaltes said:

Anyone who has taken high school physics knows that mass and weight are different things, and measured in different units. Sources are not needed when you make a blunder so obvious.

Click to expand...

What blunder? That the simple fact that one kilogram would not weigh one kilogram at the poles, when in fact it would not?

What blunder, that the kilogram is a unit of weight, even though others claimed it is not?

The only blunder made was on your behalf, since of course you can produce nothing, just claim some unknown blunder occurred.

Justatruthseeker said:

What blunder? That the simple fact that one kilogram would not weigh one kilogram at the poles, when in fact it would not?

Click to expand...

A kilogram is a unit of mass. Whether it is at the poles or indeed anywhere in the universe it is still one kilogram. Kilogram measures mass. Mass is not affected by gravity.

A one kilogram mass is 9.8 Newtons in weight on Earth. The weight (in Newtons) will vary slightly depending on where you are on the planet, and of course much more depending where you are in the universe, but the mass (in kilograms) will always be the same.

Hope that's cleared it up

Justatruthseeker said:

What blunder? That the simple fact that one kilogram would not weigh one kilogram at the poles, when in fact it would not?

What blunder, that the kilogram is a unit of weight, even though others claimed it is not?

The only blunder made was on your behalf, since of course you can produce nothing, just claim some unknown blunder occurred.

Click to expand...

The source that you linked and quoted says that a kilogram is a unit of mass and not a unit of weight. You keep trying to claim it is a unit of weight.

And your statement that a kilogram would have a different weight at the poles than at the equator shows that even you know that you are wrong.

Let me see if I can break this down so that you can understand it. If you have a kilogram of water you can figure out exactly how many atoms of hydrogen and oxygen that you have. In fact the gram was originally based upon the mass of one cubic centimeter of water. In fact let's do that simple exercise. Take one kilogram multiply by 1,000 to get 1,000 grams, divide by 18.01528 g/mol to get 55.50844 mol multiply by Avogadro's number which is 6.0221413 *10^23 molecules/mol to get 3.342796 *10^25 molecules.. That is also how many oxygen atoms there are in that kilogram of water and multiply by two and you will get the number of hydrogen atoms.

That number of atoms will not change if you are at the North Pole or at the Equator. At either site you will have the exact same number of atoms in your kilogram of water.

Also please notice how my units kept changing. I kept track of the units as the calculations went along. We started with a kilogram and multiplied it by 1,000 grams/kilogram to get grams. The kilogram units cancelled out. Then that number was divided by grams per mole which is the same as multiplying by a number that was in moles per gram and the grams canceled out. Then I multiplied by molecules per mole and the moles cancelled out.

Now let's look at weight. A weight is the same as a force. In fact in physics those are its units. It is written F= ma where F is the force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration. The acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth is such a common acceleration that it has its own abbreviation. The lower case g. The upper case G is reserved for the gravitational constant which appears in the equation F = G*M*m/r^2

The unit for force is the newton. There is a standard value for g, but in reality it varies on the surface of the Earth and since that varies your weight varies. That is why you weigh more at the poles. The force gm where g is the acceleration due to gravity and m is your mass will vary. So you weigh a different amount at the poles, and that is properly done in newtons, not kilograms, but your mass is the same at the poles or at the equator. If we froze your body right now it would have the same mass at both locales.

Gentlemen, I am very sorry my question has caused so much adverse discourse between you. All I wanted to know is whether I would be crushed if the earth stopped spinning. Your answers have reassured me that is not the case.

On a lighter note - isn't it the case that gravity does not exist and things only fall because they are heavy.

Jonathan Jarvis said:

Gentlemen, I am very sorry my question has caused so much adverse discourse between you. All I wanted to know is whether I would be crushed if the earth stopped spinning. Your answers have reassured me that is not the case.

On a lighter note - isn't it the case that gravity does not exist and things only fall because they are heavy.

Click to expand...

So I take it that you are an advocate of IF

Jonathan Jarvis said:

Gentlemen, I am very sorry my question has caused so much adverse discourse between you.

Click to expand...

Rest assured, you and your question are not the cause of the friction (physics pun intended) between the people who know what they are talking about, and the person who supports a pseudoscientific idea.

Justatruthseeker said:

What blunder? That the simple fact that one kilogram would not weigh one kilogram at the poles, when in fact it would not?

What blunder, that the kilogram is a unit of weight, even though others claimed it is not?

Click to expand...

The kilogram is a unit of mass. The newton is a unit of weight. I can't believe you're still insisting otherwise. Nothing weighs one kilogram, because the kilogram is a unit of mass, not weight.

Justatruthseeker said:

The only blunder made was on your behalf, since of course you can produce nothing, just claim some unknown blunder occurred.

Click to expand...

Go to Wikipedia:

"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)."

Emphasis mine. Its article on weight states:

"In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Its magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton."

These are basic standard definitions taught to kids at age 10, or even younger. To insist that the kilogram is a unit of mass... my God, your country has failed you.

Jonathan Jarvis said:

Gentlemen, I am very sorry my question has caused so much adverse discourse between you. All I wanted to know is whether I would be crushed if the earth stopped spinning. Your answers have reassured me that is not the case.

On a lighter note - isn't it the case that gravity does not exist and things only fall because they are heavy.

Click to expand...

"A lighter note" - oh I see what you did there!

Jonathan Jarvis said:

Gentlemen, I am very sorry my question has caused so much adverse discourse between you. All I wanted to know is whether I would be crushed if the earth stopped spinning. Your answers have reassured me that is not the case.

On a lighter note - isn't it the case that gravity does not exist and things only fall because they are heavy.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the false geometric interpretation of relativity, that gravity is not a force at all. Not worth bothering to talk about such a ridiculous idea that violates cause and affect.