Atomic Weights, Relativity, and FTL Travel

Originally posted by Astyanax
You can stick with your sloppy notation if you want. It won't disguise the fact that the algebra you posted above would disgrace a fifth-grader.

Speaking of sloppy notations it appears that we are using metonymical nomials to lable concepts such as "atomic weight". It should be "ionic current", but hey, he has a star on his post! Someone liked it.

Do you understand the concept of weight? What is free fall? What is a 'celestial object'?

"Physics - the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass."

"In physics, the motion of a body being acted upon only by gravity. A satellite in orbit is in free fall."

Celestial-body : Planet, asteroid, comet, moon, star, galaxy, solar system, organism, cell, animal, plant, element, atom, molecule, etc.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal, seriously, what's the point in creating these kind of threads, just to be told 10 times the same thing by 10 different people, and then totally ignoring what they are saying or simply brushing off what they're saying as bull# and then re-affirming you're totally right on this subject? If you know all about this why create this topic?

You done the same thing with your colors thread.

Troll.

reply to post by DarkSide

i hope you don't mind if i ask a simplistic question...if you had two planets of the same dimensional size...one made of mostly gases and the 2nd made up mostly of iron.... that should mean the gravitaional pull of the iron planet would be enormously more powerful because of the mass...right? and if so...why have scientists found such strong gravitional pulls around such gaseous planets?
obviously i'm not even close to be a physics major...so be kind

reply to post by jimmyx

I'm not a professional physicist either, but I think that you might be able to look at it as follows:

The mass of something is a measure of how much matter or "stuff" is contained within a given volume of something. Now a one cubic meter block of lead is going to contain more "stuff" than a one cubic meter block of balsa wood. Therefore, gravity will affect the block of lead more than it will affect the block of balsa and thus the lead will weigh more. Next, keep your one cubic meter block of lead and compare it to, say, a 1000 cubic meter block of balsa wood. Now the block of balsa will have more "stuff", i.e. mass, will weigh more than the block of lead and also exert more of a gravitational pull of its own.

So, even though the Earth is made of rock and Jupiter is made of gas, and for equal volumes the rock has more "stuff" to it than gas, because there is so much more gas-stuff making up Jupiter than rock-stuff making up Earth, Jupiter has more mass and thus more of a gravitational effect.

If I'm way off base here, hopefully one of the pro's will correct me.

Noscitare is correct. Jupiter for example is mostly made of various gases around a "small" solid core. Nevertheless it is almost 318 times Earth's mass and therefore has a much more powerful gravitationnal force. You have to take into account the size of Jupiter and the quantity of gases that make up it's atmosphere

reply to post by Noscitare


One thing that fools people when they think of 'gas' is that it's some ephemeral, wafty stuff. Well the 'gas' of which Jupiter is composed is under incredible pressure. At some point the 'gas' is so compressed that it takes on the characteristics of a dense liquid, or solid or even a 'metallic' substance. It's a form of 'exotic' matter:

From a Jupiter page:

Jupiter probably has a core of rocky material amounting to something like 10 to 15 Earth-masses.

Above the core lies the main bulk of the planet in the form of liquid metallic hydrogen. This exotic form of the most common of elements is possible only at pressures exceeding 4 million bars, as is the case in the interior of Jupiter (and Saturn). Liquid metallic hydrogen consists of ionized protons and electrons (like the interior of the Sun but at a far lower temperature). At the temperature and pressure of Jupiter's interior hydrogen is a liquid, not a gas. It is an electrical conductor and the source of Jupiter's magnetic field. This layer probably also contains some helium and traces of various "ices".

Thus it has equal or even more 'stuff' ( ) per cubic volume than a rocky planet.

Edit: our pressure on Earth is measured in milli bars. On Jupiter it's 4 million bars. On Earth our pressure is about 1000 millibars. Thus Jupiter's atmosphere is 4 million times denser.

(1 bar=1000millibars; 29.92 inches of mercury is equivalent to 1013.25 millibars)

HTH.






[edit on 15-12-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by DarkSide
If you know all about this why create this topic?

So that you and others can know and then hopefully the whole world. Everything that science has done up until me has divided and caused confusion. There is no division.

A troll? Like those big green slimy guys that live under bridges with moles all over their faces? Anyone have some oxypads? I seem to have a skin problem and it has been noticed!

Atomic masses are measured by this: e/c^2=m. Ionic current.

Mass: Physics- the quantity of matter as determined from its weight. And: the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia, that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains, that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field, and that along with length and time constitutes one of the fundamental quantities on which all physical measurements are based.

Again: Here's weight - Physics- the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

Matter: Physics- Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

Inertia: the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.

Now since it is clear that all of these are interrelated and interdependent, would anyone like to explain how atomic mass/weight is independent of gravity? I'm looking forward to it. Is physics a joke? Or is everyone just misinformed here?

And P.S. Have you realized that everything is in free fall yet?

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

No arguing with this

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Everything that science has done up until me has divided and caused confusion.

Fellow members, what we have here is a statement that brooks no argument.

I see only two possibilities as to its origin:

1. The maker of the statement is an irritating little teenage troll.
   
   
2. The maker of the statement is legally insane.
   

Personally - I have been reading this individual's posts on numerous threads for many months now - I am convinced that the second of these possibilities is true.

Accordingly, I decline to participate further in this thread, or to engage in any further interaction with LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal on any other thread. I am not a psychiatrically qualified person, and do not wish inadvertently to aggravate the problem, whatever it may be.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
No arguing with this

Good because one sided arguing is a waste of time. Would you agree?

Fellow members, what we have here is a statement that brooks no argument.

See sentence 2 vertical of the present.

I see only three possibilities as to its origin:

Why limit the possibilities? May I add a 4th? There was no origin to the statement.

The maker of the statement is an irritating little teenage troll.

Relative to how you measure time and what you perceive as irritating and troll like, then it is a possibility.

The maker of the statement is legally insane.

Now we must define sanity. If I am illegally sane, would that make me legally insane in your world? Think about it.

Personally - I have been reading this individual's posts on numerous threads for many months now - I am convinced that the second of these possibilities is true.

Everyone is entitled to their personal convictions. I would happen to agree with you on your synopsis of my character, because on some level it must be true since you so strongly believe in it, but remember... on some level it must also be false, then again it can be neither as both at the same time.

Accordingly, I decline to participate further in this thread, or to engage in any further interaction with LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal on any other thread.

You are entitled to your opinions and decisions. So far you have poked no holes in what I have presented, only corrected a numerological notation error. Thank you for that btw. C2 could be considered a carbon molecule, cysteine, or cytosine and I wouldn't want to cause any more confusion especially than that of the all ready existing physics paradigm.

At any time you are free to chime in again and I won't make a mockery of your previous statements. Everything is subject to change.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Grammar.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I'm looking forward to your next post. After the very elaborate antithesis of the big bang, the white tshirt that you can see in the dark, and now that mass is determined by weight, i'm wondering what kind of funny stuff you'll come up with next

What I find funny, humor me if you will for a moment, are statements like these : Astyanax: "Gravity is everywhere. It permeates the universe. It is not true that there is 'no gravity in deep space'".

Followed by:

DarkSide: "Objects independent of gravity will still have mass". Yes, I am allowed to laugh too.

Looks like you two don't agree. If gravity permeates the universe then it is true that mass is reliant on gravity. Independent of gravity there would be no mass, even if your view is that we can not be independent of gravity then theoretically the former must still be true.

Perhaps you don't understand my motives, and perchance you don't invest enough to, therefore this is why I see you dribbling all over your shirt and not noticing it (no pun intended, a bib would do good, we're just having fun, right?), that is, making statements that are contradictive to the very process of physics, existence, and the universe itself.

Furthermore, Astyanax must not agree with his own convictions. Poster states that gravity permeates the universe, by default implying that everything is now interdependent on gravity and that gravity is a part of everything that makes it what it is (this is true), then the poster claims that being - "independent of gravity there would be no mass" - is an incorrect statement. That is an oxymoron... but fine. It's always the insane that lable the sane's insanity.

Do you want to the know the truth about yourselves? In my opinion you are both ego tripping on knowledge of a religious/scientific mindset (no pun intended, just an observasive objective perception). In fact, you are so proud of your knowledge that you don't even allow yourself to think outside of your bubble, let alone realize that everything you are presenting to me is a contradiction. Sometimes the truth is harsh, but the both of you have been so unpleasant and unwelcoming to me and my ideas and my character. I've found that you are both very good at insults, self delusion, and insecurity. Have I gone too far? I think I presented enough evidence, rather you presented it for me. Now would you like to have a discussion on the nature of the universe outside of our characters? I think we're even, if not there is a whole lot more that you've both posted that I can jump right through because the holes are so big. You've poked at me, now I've shown that it can be done right back, though I'd surmise that mine is a lot more effective and logical, though that is up to the reader to decide. Continue, shall we?

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Numerous spelling errors.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Is it worth trying again?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Atomic masses are measured by this: e/c^2=m. Ionic current.

I have never heard of "ionic current" - let alone that it has anyting to do with mass.

Mass: Physics- the quantity of matter as determined from its weight. And: the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia, that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains, that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field, and that along with length and time constitutes one of the fundamental quantities on which all physical measurements are based.

Ok - I will take this very slowly. It has already been explained on here at least once.....

1) Mass is not determined by weight at all. Even remotely.
2) Mass is indeed "the quantity of matter". Consider this for a moment though. Mass tells us *HOW MANY* subatomic particles are present. Not how much these particles weigh. One proton is one proton, without any reference to its weight. It is one "thing". Mass tells us how many "things" there are (usually protons and neutrons in fact).
3) Things start to have weight when they are affected by a gravitational field. A gravitational field is a force that acts upon particles of matter. Particles like protons and neutrons. But one proton remains just one proton. A billion protons still remain a billion protons. That has nothing to do with the gravitational field acting on them. Any more than 10 oranges become anything other than 10 oranges when suibjected to different gravitational fields.
4) "Weight" is the force exerted on these particles by a gravitational field.
5) A gravitational field is determined not by how much something weighs but by how much "stuff" it contains. Thus one proton (irrespectibe of how much it weighs) will always exert the same gravitiational field. A planet contains a fixed number of particles, and that number of particles will exert a fixed gravitational field. It doesn't matter how much the planet weighs, what matters is how much stuff is in it to create the field.

The amount of "stuff" is called the Mass. This is a measure of the actual bnmber of particles in it. Not how much it weighs.

Again: Here's weight - Physics- the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

Ok - let us say we know how much stuff there is (the number of particles in it). Which is the "Mass"...

Let us think about this gravitational field acting on it. This field is caused by another lot of stuff (another massive body we might say). This other lot of stuff is also made up of a certain number of particles (its own mass). The amount of field it applies is the number of particles it contains (which we know), multiplied by the force exerted by each particle (which we also know). That it its gravitational field.

Then this field acts upon the first load of stuff. We work out the force applied to the first load of stuff by multiplying the amount ofthe first load of stuff by the field.

Matter: Physics- Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

A bad definition, but it can do for now...

Inertia: the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.

Hmmm. Well, it is better expressed as a mathematical relationship: F = mv (F = inertia; m = mass; v = velocity = speed along a given relative axial direction)

Now since it is clear that all of these are interrelated and interdependent, would anyone like to explain how atomic mass/weight is independent of gravity? I'm looking forward to it. Is physics a joke? Or is everyone just misinformed here?

Well, I hope I have convinced you that they are not interdependant. 10 oranges do not become 5 oranges on the moon simply because they weigh less there. A billion protons stay a billion protons wherever they are in space and time and in whatecver condidition you choose. "Mass" is how much stuff there is.

Atomic Mass is way, not of weighing atoms in a gravitational field, but of working out how much stuff is in an atom of each element. Simply put, Hydrogen contains one proton in its normal isotope. We have decided to fix its atomic mass as "1" for convenience. A neutron weighs approximately the same as a proton, and therefore Deuterium has an atomic mass of 2 (one proton + one neutron). These are still sbsolute numbers, and a Deuteriukm atom has the same amount of stuff in it no matter what gravitational field it is in. As do all the elements.

Mass is a property of matter. It tells us how matter behaves. It is basically a measure of how much energy it takes to create that particular piece of matter itself (E=mc^2). Depending on how much condensed energy there is (an electron is much less condensed energy than a proton for example), it beahves differently. Mass is not determined by weight, or by gravitational fields, but by how much mass-energy there is in the particle.

The interesting thing about relativity is how is makes this clear, and that if we increase the energy in a particle by accelerating it, then it starts to behave like particles which have been created from higher and higher energies (i.e. we say for conveniecne "as if it had more mass"). Which is why as you accelerate a particle toward the speed of light it starts behaving like a particle which has had to have been supplied to with inifinite energy to create in the first place - which is why it is impossible!

Cheers.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by d60944]

Originally posted by d60944
I have never heard of "ionic current" - let alone that it has anyting to do with mass.

That reply was directed at the mass spectrometer statement which tells us the mass of electrically charged particles/atoms/ions. Previously it had been stated that it is ionic current not atomic weight, but it does have everything to do with mass.

1) Mass is not determined by weight at all. Even remotely.

If I know the weight of an object and I know the local gravitational field that it is subject to, then I can determine its mass. Thusly, mass can be and is determined by and from weight.

2) Mass is indeed "the quantity of matter". Consider this for a moment though. Mass tells us *HOW MANY* subatomic particles are present. Not how much these particles weigh. One proton is one proton, without any reference to its weight. It is one "thing". Mass tells us how many "things" there are (usually protons and neutrons in fact).

Concurrence.

3) Things start to have weight when they are affected by a gravitational field. A gravitational field is a force that acts upon particles of matter. Particles like protons and neutrons. But one proton remains just one proton. A billion protons still remain a billion protons. That has nothing to do with the gravitational field acting on them. Any more than 10 oranges become anything other than 10 oranges when subjected to different gravitational fields.

All things have weight, all the time. The rest I agree with.

4) "Weight" is the force exerted on these particles by a gravitational field.

Yes, and also: the more weight an object has and the more massive and dense it is, the stronger its gravitational field.

5) A gravitational field is determined not by how much something weighs but by how much "stuff" it contains.

It is both. How much stuff something contains will determine weight along with gravity. How much something weighs will determine its gravitic effects and how it is effected by gravity, and also determine its mass, etc.

A planet contains a fixed number of particles,

I disagree.

and that number of particles will exert a fixed gravitational field. It doesn't matter how much the planet weighs, what matters is how much stuff is in it to create the field.

They both matter. The stuff determines the weight and the weight detemines the stuff, they both determine the gravitic field and vice verse and inversed etc.

The amount of "stuff" is called the Mass. This is a measure of the actual bnmber of particles in it. Not how much it weighs.

Correct, but it can be determined by a combination of weight, gravity, and other means.

Hmmm. Well, it is better expressed as a mathematical relationship: F = mv (F = inertia; m = mass; v = velocity = speed along a given relative axial direction)

Yes. Everything has inertia.

Well, I hope I have convinced you that they are not interdependant. 10 oranges do not become 5 oranges on the moon simply because they weigh less there.

They permeate through each other. I did not say that 10 would become 5. I said that they are interrelated and interdependent, which they are. They all create each other and make one another known.

Atomic Mass is way, not of weighing atoms in a gravitational field, but of working out how much stuff is in an atom of each element.

I know this. The definition used was atomic weight, not atomic mass.

Deuteriukm atom has the same amount of stuff in it no matter what gravitational field it is in. As do all the elements.

1.00794. Unless the gravitational field is so strong that it rips apart elemental properties, but then it would no longer be the same element.

Mass is a property of matter. It tells us how matter behaves.

And matter is a property of mass, it can and will tell us how mass behaves.

Which is why as you accelerate a particle toward the speed of light it starts behaving like a particle which has had to have been supplied to with inifinite energy to create in the first place - which is why it is impossible!

Supply it with the universe as the universe.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Why did you ignore the rest of d's post?

The problem here is that you think you have the answer to everything and anyone that contradicts you is just someone reading india daily. 10 physicists could post in the thread and you would still re-affirm that mass is dependant on gravity or whatever.

Originally posted by DarkSide
The problem here is that you think you have the answer to everything and anyone that contradicts you is just someone reading india daily.

To think is to be and to know. I know I have the answers to everything because I am everything. So far I have proven such diligently and inexturpably. There's no problem here, yet an entire equation.

10 physicists could post in the thread and you would still re-affirm that mass is dependant on gravity or whatever.

Prove that it isn't. When you can stand outside of what you call gravity and attain mass then I'll bow down, untill then you have to deal with the universe and its constituents and it appears to be an eternal battle for you.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I will post in my given and used name. I do find many of the alias names to be be creative and evocative, and they sometimes make me smile.
I begin with disclosing that I am not a physicist, only interested in the science as a result of research of the ingredients used to varnish a 17th century musical instrument. This has lead to a novice understanding of atomic structure, crystal structure, and electro-magnetism. And these quantum physics somehow continually become relative!

Perhaps we can put aside our sense of personal importance for the moment and acting as if we were in the company of friends discuss these ideas.

Can we exceed the speed of light? Is it possible to re-arrange molecular structure temporarily? What happens to an atom after it has been split? How does one split an atom?

So the initiator of this thread, who claims omnipotence and purports to already have the answers but apparently enjoys riddles, has asked if we think time travel is possible. At least I think that's what this is about?

I ask,

Is atomic weight measured as the amount of the combined neutrons and photons? And what, if any, is the relevance of the associated electrons?

Is mass measured as the space, such as a cubic increment of measure, that an element would occupy to have a comparable weight?

Is gravity a condition of related magnetism, somehow corresponding to the molecular structure of photons/neutrons and independent or unaffected by the amount of electrons a material/element contains?

If hydrogen floats, and plutonium sinks, can these elements be electron doped to exhibit different qualities?

If gravity is a type of electromagnetism, as demonstrated by a compass, can it be fooled somehow, like opposing poles of a magnet?

DNA, crystal structure, salt, metal, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, what would happen if these elements were allowed a synthesis free of applied dynamics from electricity and/or at below freezing temperatures?

thanks!

Your questions answered

Originally posted by david blair
Can we exceed the speed of light?

No.

Is it possible to re-arrange molecular structure temporarily?

Yes.

What happens to an atom after it has been split?

It ceases to exist.

How does one split an atom?

By bombarding it with high-energy photons, which strips the nucleus of its electrons.

To split the nucleus, you accelerate it through an intense magnetic field and slam it into a suitably solid target.

Is atomic weight measured as the amount of the combined neutrons and photons?

You mean protons, not photons. No. Electron mass is also included.

And what, if any, is the relevance of the associated electrons?

See above.

Is mass measured as the space, such as a cubic increment of measure, that an element would occupy to have a comparable weight?

No.

Is gravity a condition of related magnetism, somehow corresponding to the molecular structure of photons/neutrons and independent or unaffected by the amount of electrons a material/element contains?

No.

If hydrogen floats, and plutonium sinks, can these elements be electron doped to exhibit different qualities?

No, whatever you mean by 'electron doping'.

If gravity is a type of electromagnetism, as demonstrated by a compass, can it be fooled somehow, like opposing poles of a magnet?

Gravity is not a type of electromagnetism.

DNA, crystal structure, salt, metal, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, what would happen if these elements were allowed a synthesis free of applied dynamics from electricity and/or at below freezing temperatures?

Please clarify.

know. I know I have the answers to everything because I am everything. So far I have proven such diligently and inexturpably.

All you have proven is that you fail at high school physics that's all

[edit on 18-12-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide
All you have proven is that you fail at high school physics that's all

I agree, and with this you have proven that you are no more than a walking highschool physics book that is unable to think outside of its internal textual and conceptual knowledge bank.

I would fail highschool physics because it can not contain me.

You have no creativity. You are a fearful ego hiding behind other people's knowledge that has built a defense around such an ego. Anything that questions or expands your comfort bubble and doubts the veracity of your existential knowledge poses a threat to your autocracy and you make it known through your attempt at insults and dodging of substantial conversation .

So far you have done little to progress discussion in this thread outside of character attacks and nasty language. When you're ready, if you haven't noticed, there is a topic to be discussed.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I agree, and with this you have proven that you are no more than a walking highschool physics book that is unable to think outside of its internal textual and conceptual knowledge bank.

Not understanding something isn't thinking outside of it.

You have no creativity. You are a fearful ego hiding behind other people's knowledge that has built a defense around such an ego.

The only big ego I see here is you. Want me to quote? "I am everything" "I know everything" "highschool physics cannot contain me".

Anything that questions or expands your comfort bubble and doubts the veracity of your existential knowledge poses a threat to your autocracy and you make it known through your attempt at insults and dodging of substantial conversation.

Wrong, I'm against scientific dogma and for the funding of alternative research.

So far you have done little to progress discussion in this thread outside of character attacks and nasty language.

The words "fail" and "ignorance" are neither attacks nor are they nasty language.

When you're ready, if you haven't noticed, there is a topic to be discussed.

That's already done. Which means there is no point in anyone discussing with you since you already think you know everything and nothing will convince you otherwise, even if everything you have said about mass and weight is wrong, and everyone that has replied disagreed with what you said and attempted to prove otherwise. Replies which you've chosen to ignore. Your loss not ours