Can heat possibly be proportional to its Gravity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

science_man

Guest
Can we agree that it is possible for gravity to be caused by intense heat? Just like Energy is proportional to Mass, Heat is proportional to the Gravitational pull.<br /><br />Example 1: The sun is extremely hot, it has extreme gravity.<br />Example 2: In outer space, it is very cold. there is almost no gravity.<br />Example 3: Black holes suck everything in... particles collide infinitely creating friction creating heat. Thus more heat, more gravity.<br />Example 4: When you split an atom you break the gravitation pull thus creating heat. And vise versa<br /><br />Theory 1: If there was a solid metal ball the mass of the sun in a diferent galaxy, the gravitation pull of the ball would be less than the gravitation pull of the sun. The reason: the sun has more heat than a solid metal ball.<br />Theory 2: Antigravity (dark matter) is below absolute zero.<br /><br />Why not?<br />It works right? I'm just trying to prove it using formulas instead of just giving examples. Heat is proportional to gravity! or so it seems...<br /><br />-- Nishant Shukla
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Yes and no. To the degree you are advocating, it is not tenable. However, I believe that energy has mass. It would not be something we could measure here on Earth, but might play a part in certain astronomical observations.<br /><br />I take a sealed box and insert into it a bucket full of .511 MeV photons. I also include an "ACME Photon Conversion Device". I set the timer for a conversion to positrons/electrons and then back to photons every 10 minutes. I seal the box and put it on a scale. Do I see the box getting lighter and then heavier every 10 minutes? I don't think so. If I did, then I could put an umbrella on the top of the box, change the timer to twice a second and it would flap up and down and take off and fly around the world forever, thus violating the first law of thermodynamics. (Which cannot be violated) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
This is a duplicate post of the same message you made in another thread, which is not only frowned upon here at SDC, but is against the rules.<br />See my response on your other post of this question.<br /><br />Welcome to SDC!!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
"I believe that energy has mass"<br />Well, yeah. E = mc2 states that any mass has an associated energy and vice versa.<br /><br />But I'm relating heat with gravity. not mass <br /><br /><br />And sorry MeteorWayne. I didn't think people would read my post when it was in the bottom of the 3rd page of a different post.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
"But I'm relating heat with gravity. not mass "<br /><br />Which as I stated in the other thread, is such a silly idea, it's bemusing <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Got any proof? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
No I currently have NO proof. But I believe it is a significant possibility. Its worth a try to prove.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"When you split an atom you break the gravitation pull thus creating heat."<br /><br />So fusion, the opposite process, would absorb heat? (Answer - no)<br /><br />Actually, fission releases heat because energy in the form of reduced binding energy of the nucleus is released. The binding energy in this case is not gravity. It is in fact a seperate force.<br /><br />You can understand a lot about fusion and fission if you look up the binding energy per nucleon curve.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
If heat and gravity were directly related, supercooled magnets would float in the air,<br />rendering the need for magnetism useless. Cold, mooned asteroids would not be able<br />to hold their moons. Uranus would probably have no moons and no rings. The space shuttle<br />would probably need less fuel, just fill it up with supercold liquid gases and up it floats?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
science_man<br /><font color="yellow">mass has an associated energy and vice versa. But I'm relating heat with gravity. not mass</font><br /><br />If heat is energy and I can equate energy with mass and all mass has gravity then I have related heat to gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
John1R, supercooled magnets would not float at all. Remember, I said the substance has to be below absolute zero to display anti-gravity phenomenon. It doesn't matter how cold something is unless its 0 K or less. <br /><br />and Slugg,<br />You are assuming that heat is infact energy. Heat is not energy. <br />I'm trying to prove heat is gravity. <br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
I notice you ignored my point about how the evidence does not support your suppositions about fission and gravity.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
oh sorry drwayne. I'm not as familiar with atomic fission. I thought fission required heat in order to occur. But according to you: apparently not. Maybe atomic fusion and fission weren't the best examples because I am not very familiar in the topic. I accept it was my mistake to put fission/fusion in the examples on my first post. <br /><br />Can you please explain to me why fission releases more heat than it consumes?
 
D

drwayne

Guest
In fission , one nucleus with less binding energy per nucleon is split into multiple nucleii that are have a higher binging energy per nucleon - the difference leading to the energy we see from fission.<br /><br />One the flip side, fusion, the process by which multiple nuceli are combined - the operation is that multiple nuclei with lower binding energy per nucleon are combined into a single nuclei with a higher binding energy per nucleon.<br /><br />If you can understand this curve:<br /><br />http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1019v1/css/h1019v1_77.htm<br /><br />then you can understand why Iron is special.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
R

R1

Guest
ok, I was thinking effects would be noticeable above 0 degrees K.<br /><br />So is this all strictly for temperatures at and below 0 deg. K?<br /><br />Are you implying that gravitational spacetime distortion waves do not exist at 0K and<br />cause an opposite effect below 0K?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
science_man<br />How can you not know that fission is temperature independent and presume to know enough to argue that heat is not energy?<br /><br />Something is not adding up here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Were he absolutely correct, the Trinity A-bomb test would have generated a momentary gravitational pulse that would have been *ahem* quite noticeable. As would every detonation of a Nuclear or Thermonuclear device since then.<br /><br />Variation in Solar Output (known eccentric behavior) would of course alter the force of gravity the sun's mass expresses, and so all planetary orbits would conform to that change in measurable ways.<br /><br />All not so, obviously. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Yevaud<br />I was 11 days old when Ivy Mike went off 10-31-52. It was the very first thermonuclear device. Old family story. My dad was trying to change my diaper, and it went off. (Me, not the bomb). At that precise moment, Ivy Mike detonated. Dad reports that there was a momentary sideways displacement of the urine stream. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Was that carefully measured, witnessed, and then Peer-reviewed? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Of course. The deviation from vertical was in ding-dong units. God is my witness, and all my peers in day care reviewed it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Dear me. Should I be pissed-off at this new revelation? If so, Urine a lot of trouble, Mister! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Hey - just be glad you weren't my Dad. He got pissed ON! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> *Ahem*<br /><br />Moving right along...<br /><br />You see my point though. If heat were somehow gravity, a Thermonuclear detonation would create a huge gravitational increase locally. Assuming heat were synonymous with energy, that is. Hasn't happened.<br /><br />The planets, at least over the longish term, would meander in their orbits like drunkards, if the gravity expressed by the sun varied with it's heat output. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
lol, wow. <br /><br />Slugg.... good point.<br /><br />and yeah John1R, its all for temperatures strictly at and below 0 deg. K<br />And yes that is what I'm implying. By 0 K I mean the temperature of the entire planet (which is impossible for any entity). <br />We know dark matter exists but not in any way or form. According to this Heat-Gravity theory, dark matter is not a physical entity and it is at or below 0 degrees Kelvin.
 
S

science_man

Guest
Yevaud, let me answer your second thought first. When I talk about the heat of the sun, I'm talking about the entire heat (including the core). Like putting the entire sun in a box and measuring the temperature inside the box, not like measuring the surface heat of the sun. This heat should remain significantly equal (we know it is insignificantly decreasing in heat).<br /><br />Now the first part of your argument. A thermonuclear detonation is indeed dramatically hot, but its all relative. Compared the the Earth's core or Sun's core, a thermonuclear bomb isn't close enough to display any gravitational activity (maybe at the atomic level, yes) because it is not as hot.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Ok. Small Beer in the sense you mean.<br /><br />Default to next point: eccentricities in the sun's output are well-known. These can be seen in a long-term historical sense.<br /><br />Why does the orbital history of all of the planets not alter dependent on the variations in the sun's thermal output?<br /><br />There is no recorded or calculated variation of up to 3% of the predicted for the Sun's (known) gravitational expression over time which affects orbital tracks. None.<br /><br />Yes, 1%-3% would be measurable in our trackbacks of orbits and interactions of the various bodies in the Solar System. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts