It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I see that you have a major problem with mathematical expression E=mc2.
And ponder this -- Sun is losing mass by emitting massless photons... Who of course do possess energy.
If E is the energy of the photon, plug that into E=mc^2 and you get the relativistic mass, m=E/(c^2)
Then how do you explain the source I cited earlier regarding the gravitational effect of light beams on other light beams?
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
I see that you have a major problem with mathematical expression E=mc2.
Uh, that equation basically tells you how much energy you can get out of something; i.e., how much a given amount of mass can do work. It states nothing about generating gravitational fields.
And ponder this -- Sun is losing mass by emitting massless photons... Who of course do possess energy.
Uh, no. The emission of mass-less photons is a secondary effect of the energetic reactions that take place within the sun. At the onset of stellar birth, a star is typically dense, as it matures going through it's sources of fuel it get's larger and less dense. The denser the source of mass, the more gravity it has, the less denser the mass, the less gravity it has.
Originally posted by sirnex
Then how do you explain the source I cited earlier regarding the gravitational effect of light beams on other light beams?
I haven't read through the link yet.
Expressions are obtained, in accordance with Einstein's approximate solution of the equations of general relativity valid in weak fields, for the effect of steady pencils and passing pulses of light on the line element in their neighborhood. The gravitational fields implied by these line elements are then studied...
Wrong. It's called "equivalence". Equal sign works both ways, you know.
All of the above is 100% wrong. The gravity of the body has nothing to do with density. I can't imagine where you got such an inane proposition. One pound of cottonwool has the same mass as one pound of lead and exerts same amount of gravitational pool at the same distance.
link
A measure of the amount of matter contained by a given volume
A black hole forms when a star or other matter collapses to such a small size that the escape velocity equals the speed of light. This point where the escape velocity equals the speed of light is called the event horizon or Schwarzschild radius. To what density must a star be compressed so that its escape velocity equals the speed of light?
Read more at Suite101: Calculating Density of Black Holes: How Much Must Mass & Energy Be Compressed to Form an Event Horizon astrophysics.suite101.com...
Emission of photons is one of the principal ways Sun is shedding energy, which comes from its mass -- so mass goes down as well.
I can give ou another example -- take an electron and a positron and let them annihilate. There is nothing left in their place except for two photons. Which of course, carry the equivalent of mass of the pair that no longer exist.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
Wrong. It's called "equivalence". Equal sign works both ways, you know.
Well now that was a very pointless inconsequential statement. Was I arguing against the equivalency of the equation? No, not at all. I do see where you are going however, and no, it doesn't work that way and that is not even close to what the equation tells us.
Wow, would you look at that. The density of a black hole is what gives it such a massive gravitational field, well that and the more mass it contains before initial compression can generate an even larger field.
Point being, the density i.e. amount of mass in a given volume can and does also account for how much gravitational 'pull' an object will have.
Emission of photons is one of the principal ways Sun is shedding energy, which comes from its mass -- so mass goes down as well.
I can give ou another example -- take an electron and a positron and let them annihilate. There is nothing left in their place except for two photons. Which of course, carry the equivalent of mass of the pair that no longer exist.
Again, another very pointless inconsequential statement. The Sun does not work by total annihilation of it's mass into energy.
Again, if you fail to read it, tell me what happens to two annihilating particles. Where did the mass go?
If you have a black hole and you measure it's pull at distance X (this being a suitably large number, say same as between Earth and the Sun), and you have a common star of same mass at same distance, the force of gravity will be same.
See my point about observing an object from a distance larger than its radius (above).
Oh yeah it does, not by annihilation but by conversion of mass into energy. If you really didn't know that, it's time to hit the books!
Start here:
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
If you have a black hole and you measure it's pull at distance X (this being a suitably large number, say same as between Earth and the Sun), and you have a common star of same mass at same distance, the force of gravity will be same.
Another wonderful very pointless and inconsequential statement. You could do that to every massive object in existence. It's still moot to the point that the denser an object is the more gravitational pull it will exert at a specified distance. If the sun were to collapse into a black hole right now, the Earth or probably any of the planets would not stay in their nice tidy little orbits they currently preside in, instead they would steadily begin to gravitate towards this new black hole, eventually getting consumed by it.
If a one solar mass black hole were to suddenly replace the Sun at the center of our solar system, the orbits of the planets would not change. This is because the physical laws that determine the orbital motion of the Earth depend only on the actual mass of the Sun, and not on whether it is distributed within a sphere (like the Sun) or at a point (like a black hole). I hope that answers your question.
Regards,
Padi Boyd,
for the Ask an Astrophysicist
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
Again, if you fail to read it, tell me what happens to two annihilating particles. Where did the mass go?
In the example you have provided, the mass is converted to energy and in that particular case its energy is in the electromagnetic spectrum as photon's and gamma rays. *Not* converted to gravity.
If the sun were to collapse into a black hole right now, the Earth or probably any of the planets would not stay in their nice tidy little orbits they currently preside in, instead they would steadily begin to gravitate towards this new black hole, eventually getting consumed by it.
See my point about observing an object from a distance larger than its radius (above).
Right, if your outside of an objects gravitational influence, you won't be affected by it. How many very pointless and inconsequential statements are you going to spout?
Oh yeah it does, not by annihilation but by conversion of mass into energy. If you really didn't know that, it's time to hit the books!
Start here:
Now your spouting arguments for the sake of spouting arguments.