Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

When was Venus first seen?

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 
Hi Harte,
I like to give myself some time to think about this stuff because I reserve the possibility of a misunderstanding on my part and I would like to figure it out myself. However I fail to see a difference here yet. Maybe you can help me out again.


Momentum makes the storage of energy possible in a mechanical system.
I think we could say that momentum is the storage of energy in a mechanical system or mass. However, what was the origin of this energy?


Newton was the first to mathematically express the relationship between force and momentum.
In classical mechanics Newton's second law is described as F=d/dt(mv). Which basically means that a Force is equal to the distance moved over time that is multiplied by the mass times its velocity. Or that energy from a force is conserved in a mass as momentum.


The quantity mv is called the (canonical) momentum. The net force on a particle is thus equal to rate change of momentum of the particle with time.
Wikipedia- Newton's second law

Momentum is an object's mass times its velocity (p=mv) and force is equal to the rate of change of momentum on a mass. There is definitely a relationship here yet you claim that the energy from a force is not conserved in mass as momentum? If this is true then can you explain why?

All mass in the known Universe contains momentum. In relativistic terms there is no such thing as mass ever being absolutely at rest, this is simply a perspective from one's inertial frame of reference.

Maybe I am missing the point here.

What is the difference between the conservation of energy and the storage of energy?
Why is momentum not considered to be conserving the energy from a force?
What is the difference between Momentum and Inertia?

Thanks again for your time,
Devino.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I have never looked up and been enthralled by it. However, this post gives more of an understanding about it. I have always been of the thinking that humans first inhabited Mercury, then the sun got to big and hot, then we jumped to Venus, and the sun got bigger and hotter, and then earth,



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Harte
 
Hi Harte,
I like to give myself some time to think about this stuff because I reserve the possibility of a misunderstanding on my part and I would like to figure it out myself. However I fail to see a difference here yet. Maybe you can help me out again.


Momentum makes the storage of energy possible in a mechanical system.
I think we could say that momentum is the storage of energy in a mechanical system or mass. However, what was the origin of this energy?

What energy? If you mean in some system in general, you must be assuming no (kinetic) energy at the outset. In that case, work had to be done on the system.

Force times displacement equals work which equals the energy added.

If you're still talking about a system such as the Earth-Moon system, the angular momentum stored in that system (considering the orbital angular momentum and not the angular momentum of the Earth's axial rotation nor that of the moon) is mostly the linear momentum the Moon had (or the pieces of the Moon had) that was converted into angular momentum by the Earth's gravitational field.


Originally posted by Devino


Newton was the first to mathematically express the relationship between force and momentum.
In classical mechanics Newton's second law is described as F=d/dt(mv). Which basically means that a Force is equal to the distance moved over time that is multiplied by the mass times its velocity. Or that energy from a force is conserved in a mass as momentum.


The quantity mv is called the (canonical) momentum. The net force on a particle is thus equal to rate change of momentum of the particle with time.
Wikipedia- Newton's second law

Momentum is an object's mass times its velocity (p=mv) and force is equal to the rate of change of momentum on a mass.

I hadn't seen Newtons rate of change of momentum=force in a while. These days, since mass is constant, force is considered to be mass times the rate of change of velocity. The rate of change of velocity is acceleration.


There is definitely a relationship here yet you claim that the energy from a force is not conserved in mass as momentum? If this is true then can you explain why?

Because force is not energy.



All mass in the known Universe contains momentum. In relativistic terms there is no such thing as mass ever being absolutely at rest, this is simply a perspective from one's inertial frame of reference.

This is true. A large asteriod has a large momentum when it hits the Earth. But if you're flying along next to the same asteriod in space, at the same velocity as the asteroid, it has no momentum with respect to you


What is the difference between the conservation of energy and the storage of energy?

It's really a pretty fine point. "Consevation" has to do with energy always being there. Storage does not. But momentum is conserved just like energy, because it takes energy to create momentum in the first place.

An object must have velocity to have momentum. If you're flying along next to that asteroid I mentioned, it has no momentum with respect to you because it has no velocity with respect to you. But, if you were to strap a rocket engine onto the asteroid and fire it, you would be adding to the asteroid's velocity (change in velocity is acceleration - you would be adding a force.) How much acceleration you get would depend on how long the rocket burned, the mass of the asteroid and what the force of the rocket was. Not just on the force of the rocket.

I said force times distance (displacement) equals work equals energy. How long the rocket burned is also how far the asteroid moved while the rocket was burning. This is the calculation for how much energy was added to the asteroid (by accelerating it.) From this you can calculate a new velocity and thus a new momentum.

Why is momentum not considered to be conserving the energy from a force?

Again, because force is not energy. But it's really just a matter of the way these things are defined. A force can impart energy on an object if the force can accelerate that object. But two vastly different forces can impart exactly the same amount of energy if the smaller force acts over a larger distance than the larger force. Think of a bottle rocket strapped onto your asteroid for one hundred years versus a missile rocket strapped on for a millisecond.



What is the difference between Momentum and Inertia?

Inertia is a concept and momentum is a calculated quantity. Other than that, not much.


Glad to help. My comment asking you for "no more hints" was because you hadn't defined momentum properly. Not really a problem that. Not, that is, until you phrase your post as if to give "hints" on what momemtum is!

Harte



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
i have been thinking about this and i really want to know what happened August 14th, 3114 BC to cause the "Birth of Venus" and be the beginning of the long count, the start of the Mayan calendar.

There are a number of things that stick out and i feel have an important connection, and it all happened between 3,300 BC and 3,000 BC.

In this 3,000 year span the following happened:

* Egypts first dynasty
* Sumerian cities
* Newgrange built in UK to track Venus
* Mayans birth of Venus
* Bronze age starts in Indus Valley, India
* Tarxien Temples in Malta
* Construction of the Ħaġar Qim megalithic temple complex on Malta, featuring both solar and lunar alignments.

And this was interesting on the climate:

Based on studies by glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, professor at Ohio State University and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center, a number of indicators shows there was a global change in climate 5,200 years ago, probably due to a drop in solar energy output as hypothesized by Ohio State University.[1]

* Plants buried in the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Peruvian Andes demonstrate the climate had shifted suddenly and severely to capture the plants and preserve them until now.[2]
* A man trapped in an Alpine glacier ("Ötzi the Iceman") is frozen until his discovery in 1991.[3]
* Tree rings from Ireland and England show this was their driest period.[3]
* Ice core records showing the ratio of two oxygen isotopes retrieved from the ice fields atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro, a proxy for atmospheric temperature at the time snow fell.[3]
* Major changes in plant pollen uncovered from lakebed cores in South America.[3]
* Record lowest levels of methane retrieved from ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica.[3]
* End of the Neolithic Subpluvial, start of desertification of Sahara (35th century BC). North Africa shifts from a habitable region to a barren desert.[3]


I don't know, it sounds like something happened around 3200 BC which sparked a bunch of civilizations.

Take this quote from a website, i like this theory:
perdurabo10.tripod.com...

I find it interesting that the Mayans and Aztecs recognized a white god figure called Quetzalcoatl, were looking for this entitys return, and they used a complex mathematical calendar that dated to a Birth of Venus.

We know that the Planet Venus is much older than 3114 BC. So what is the significance of that date? And is there a link to Quetzalcoatl?

Remember that the name Lucifer also is an ancient name that means Venus, the morning star.

Did the Mayans remember Lucifer, whom they called Quetzalcoatl, as their progenitor and teacher from this ancient time? Was this the date when our ancestors were placed on this planet following the great flood?

We can speculate on all of these things. Without the vast library of knowledge that was destroyed by Cortes in the name of the church, we may never know the answers to these questions.


Maybe the white gods of the americas are a group of people that helped start up all of this civs, or just an explorer from one of the civs. I really think there is something to this.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Has the thought occurred to anybody, that absolutely all the scientific data weve had access to may be just a ruse? It may be kinda like the "bait and switch" thing, where tptb want us to believe Mars is somehow possibly more important than venus? I mean if they get all our attention on Mars, they can terraform Venus without us even knowing or thinking about it.
It seems to me, as time goes on the sun will slowly cool down and put Venus right smack "in" the zone where conditions for life to exist, are available. As this happens, Mars will be even less able to sustain life without intelligent support mechanisms.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashcube
It seems to me, as time goes on the sun will slowly cool down and put Venus right smack "in" the zone where conditions for life to exist, are available. As this happens, Mars will be even less able to sustain life without intelligent support mechanisms.

It may seem that way to you. However, I assure you that it will not be that way.

As time passes, the Sun uses up it's hydrogen fuel, eventually running out. When that happens, the Sun will not cool. It will shrink for a short time and then begin fusing the helium it has (instead of the hydrogen.)

Fusing helium gives off more energy, which will cause the sun to expand, and cool to a little cooler than it is because of this expansion. But the outer edge of the Sun will be much, MUCH closer than it is today.

The upshot is, first Mercury, then Venus, and then the Earth will wind up orbiting inside the Sun itself, until they are all burned away.

Harte



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by flashcube
It seems to me, as time goes on the sun will slowly cool down and put Venus right smack "in" the zone where conditions for life to exist, are available. As this happens, Mars will be even less able to sustain life without intelligent support mechanisms.

It may seem that way to you. However, I assure you that it will not be that way.

As time passes, the Sun uses up it's hydrogen fuel, eventually running out. When that happens, the Sun will not cool. It will shrink for a short time and then begin fusing the helium it has (instead of the hydrogen.)

Fusing helium gives off more energy, which will cause the sun to expand, and cool to a little cooler than it is because of this expansion. But the outer edge of the Sun will be much, MUCH closer than it is today.

The upshot is, first Mercury, then Venus, and then the Earth will wind up orbiting inside the Sun itself, until they are all burned away.

Harte


WOW...you put that very well. Thankyou for clearing me up on that.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I found something very strange and i can not explain it, it has to be a coincidence. I found a reference to Phaethon, which i didn't know about while reading this:

www.crystallotus.com...


The planet Venus established the present order on the earth and placed the north and south polar stars in their places. The Pawnee Indians believe that the future destruction of the world depends on the planet Venus. When the end of the world will come, the North and South poles will change places. In the past the South Star left its place a few times and came up higher, bringing about a shifting of the poles, but on these occasions the polar stars did not reverse their positions.

The Blazing Star: The Egyptian priests, said that the world conflagration was caused by a shifting of bodiesin the sky which move around the earth. The comet Venus after two contacts with the earth, eventually became a planet. Phaethon, which means `the blazing star,' became the Morning Star.


Has anyone heard of Phaethon? Here is some more info on Phaethon. To me it sounds exactly like something hitting the earth, maybe twice:


PHAETHON was a young son of Helios and Klymene who begged his father to let him drive the chariot of the sun. The Sun-god reluctantly conceded to the boy's wishes and handed him the reigns. However, the inexperienced Phaethon quickly lost control of the immortal steeds, and the sun-chariot veered out of control setting the earth aflame, scorching the plains of Africa to desert. Zeus was appalled by the destruction and struck the boy from the chariot with a thunderbolt, hurling his flaming body into the waters of the river Eridanos. His sisters, the Heliades, gathered on the banks, and in their mourning with transformed into amber-teared poplar trees.


So here is the weird thing. There was a group of asteroids found and named 3200 Phaethon. 3200 BC is around the time when i think something happened to the earth to cause the great deluge that devastated and restarted many civilizations.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I found something very strange and i can not explain it, it has to be a coincidence. I found a reference to Phaethon, which i didn't know about while reading this:

www.crystallotus.com...



The Blazing Star: The Egyptian priests, said that the world conflagration was caused by a shifting of bodiesin the sky which move around the earth. The comet Venus after two contacts with the earth, eventually became a planet. Phaethon, which means `the blazing star,' became the Morning Star.

The first part is from Plato, IIRC. "Critias," I believe.
The rest of the above is pure hogwash.

There's no reason to think that Plato's tale of Solon in Sais finding out about Atlantis ever even happened.
The Phaethon myth was Greek.


Originally posted by BeastMaster2012Has anyone heard of Phaethon? Here is some more info on Phaethon. To me it sounds exactly like something hitting the earth, maybe twice:

It does, and that's probably what its origins are.


Harte
edit on 3/11/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join