Can heat possibly be proportional to its Gravity?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billslugg

Guest
science_man<br /><br />A thermonuclear bomb has a temperature (for the first few microseconds anyway) of 30,000,000K??, far higher than the temperature at the center of the Earth (30,000K??) and roughly the same as the center of the Sun. <br /><br />As an aside: Here is one for you. Look up Stefan's law. The energy emitted by a source increases to the FOURTH power of temperature. (All temps must have absolute zero as their base, you can't use F and C) Got a burning match at 2000K? Raise it to 4000K? The heat emitted increases 16 times!! Now go to the center of the Sun at 30,000,000K. You think its hot here? Anyway if you were to take a piece of the Sun's core, say a chunk the size of the head of a pin, and you were to put it on top of a mountain somewhere, it would emit so much heat, that it would instantly kill any human within about 200 miles!<br /><br />I'll never forget the time I found a tiny assayer's oven at a landfill. I had been used to melting lead (600K) over a fire. It would put a flush on your face if you got near it. I fired up the oven to see what it would do. I got that oven on up to maybe 1900C. (2170K) I leaned over and opened the little door expecting it to be yellow hot. It was blindingly brilliant! Just being two feet away gave me first degree burns. Take 2170 divide by 600 you get 3.6. Take 3.6 x 3.6 x 3.6 x 3.6 you get 168 times the heat energy being radiated! I should have done the math first! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
J

jasonpply

Guest
If gravity changes with temperature that would mean that if you put a 200lb weight on a scale in the winter that weight would change if you put the same weight on the same scale in the summer correct. dont know much but thought i would ask.
 
S

science_man

Guest
jason, no. <br />Because it doesn't matter what season it is because the temperature of the core of the earth would still be the same.
 
B

billslugg

Guest
science_man<br /><br />If your theory is correct, then the attraction between two objects would increase if <i>either</i> of them got hotter. <br /><br />Now to confuse things even farther, in spite of the fact that I do not accept your theory as true, a hot object WILL be heavier than a cold object. The additional energy needed to heat up the object has mass. The change in weight would be far too small to measure. There are a few relativistic effects that we can measure here on Earth. This would not be one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Science man said:<br />"Example 3: Black holes suck everything in... particles collide infinitely creating friction creating heat. Thus more heat, more gravity."<br /><br />If you read carefully what you wrote you will see that you are saying that the high gravity existed before the high temperature so this is not a good example for you. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Folks have been precisely predicting orbital mechanics based on mass for many years. No where in the formulae is heat a factor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
origin, thanks for pointing that out. <br />derekmcd, that why its a theory. <br />billslugg, what if that is true? We cannot feel it here in earth but it could explain some unexplainable phenomenons in outer space.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Which phenomena could it explain? <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>
 
B

billslugg

Guest
science_man<br /><br />Wel, it is true. Energy does have mass. Maybe not exactly. A photon has momentum but no mass. Go figure. <br /><br />I am with MW. What do you propose could be explained that is not already explained by Einstein's theories?<br /><br />You need to get an offhand, gut feel for the magnitude of relativistic concerns in our daily lives. At our scale of velocity, energy, time, whatever - relativistic effects are notoriously difficult for man to measure. <br /><br />The first, I believe, was the precession of Mercury? It was a few arc seconds from where it should have been.<br /><br />Then there was a star right next to the Solar Limb, during a total eclipse, was measured to be a fraction of an arc second from where it should have been - due to the gravity of the sun bending the light wave.<br /><br />Then they took an atomic clock and flew it around the world and when it got home it was a couple of nano seconds slow, right in line with Einstein. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
<font color="yellow">that why its a theory</font><br /><br />If it's a "theory", then you need to propose a test case...<br /><br />What it sounds like you have here is a vague hypothesis that has been shot down in flames. What you need to do now to edge this closer to "a theory" is to address <i>specifically</i> how you propose to repair the holes that others have shot here. If you can't patch the holes, then this hypothesis is going to crash-land in the middle of the back woods of <i>Phenomena</i>... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<font color="yellow">science_man - <br />Example 1: The sun is extremely hot, it has extreme gravity.</font><br /><br />True.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Example 2: In outer space, it is very cold. there is almost no gravity.</font><br /><br />"Almost?"<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Example 3: Black holes suck everything in... particles collide infinitely creating friction creating heat. Thus more heat, more gravity.</font><br /><br />False. A black hole would still be an attractor even if there were no collisions producing "heat" or radiation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Example 4: When you split an atom you break the gravitation pull thus creating heat. And vise versa</font><br /><br />False. Gravity has almost nothing to do with the binding forces of an atom. The effect there is so miniscule as to be nonexistent.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />False. EM Radiation has nothing to do with gravity. (That we know of and certainly thermal radiation doesn't enter into it in any case.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Theory 2: Antigravity (dark matter) is below absolute zero. </font><br /><br />False A. "Antigravity" has yet to be proven to exist. As far as we know, (AFAIK) gravity is the resultant phenomenon of mass expressed in our 4D space. "Anti-gravity" isn't expressable in such a fashion. (AFAIK)<br /><br />False B. How do you get below "absolute zero?" Absolute zero (0K) is the cessation of all molecular motion which results in 0 thermal energy being expressed. There is nothing below "absolute zero." It is a temperature measurement and has a absolute and finite boundary at 0K.<br /><br />You are making false causitive statements directly from correlations. Heat do <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
S

science_man

Guest
to MeteorWayne, <br />It can explain:<br />1.) why different planets have different orbit speeds. (mass and distance from sun are factors but assuming they cancel out or are equal). <br />2.) what happens when 2 black holes collide<br />3.) why in the first place a black hole was formed. i.e. why suddenly gain gravity? <br />4.) antigravity<br /><br />to a_lost_packet_,<br />example 3: I said it wrong. This theory explains why black holes form in the first place. If heat increases some how in a star, its gravitation pull increases thus creating a gravity. Otherwise, how can an object suddenly gain gravity. Well, this heat is the initial heat for starting the black hole. Once started, it will repeat a never ending (unless acted upon) cycle of gaining more gravity because it gains more heat every second. <br />Example 4: I admit atoms are a bad example because I am dealing with a large scope and atoms fall under the category of quantum mechanics. They cannot be combined yet. <br />Theory 1: this is what im trying to prove. heat = /> thermal => gravity <br />Theory 2: no physical matter or entity can be below zero degree kelvin. But what is an entity? anti gravity may not be a physical entity so therefore it can be whatever temperature. Below 0 K sounds right if heat is proportional to gravity.<br /><br />about your hot air balloon thing:<br />The temperature of the hot air balloon is insignificant! The reason the hot air balloon goes up while cold air balloon goes down is because of because hot air has less mass. And if you really want to put my theory in this scenario click here to see the image I made: http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3176/heatgravityvt1.gif<br /><br />to billslugg,<br />I have 2 solutions for the thermonuclear bomb problem. <br />1.) we're dealing a little with quantum mechanics. And my theory is assuming the object is large in scale.<br />2.) maybe bombs do submit gravity.
 
B

billslugg

Guest
science _man<br /><font color="yellow">ok im just spitting things out here</font><br /><br />NO, No, no! Don't say that!! Take it back! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<font color="orange">This theory explains why black holes form in the first place. If heat increases some how in a star, its gravitation pull increases thus creating a gravity. Otherwise, how can an object suddenly gain gravity. Well, this heat is the initial heat for starting the black hole. Once started, it will repeat a never ending (unless acted upon) cycle of gaining more gravity because it gains more heat every second.</font><br /><br />Objects do not suddenly gain gravity unless more mass is introduced. A black hole is formed when a star no longer produces enough outward pressure to keep it from collapsing. Once a star has become a black hole, there is no 'never ending cycle'. A black hole will consume surrounding matter if it falls beyond the event horizon. After it has cleared its neighborhood, it is no longer active. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
T

themage

Guest
<font color="yellow">1.) why different planets have different orbit speeds. (mass and distance from sun are factors but assuming they cancel out or are equal). <br />2.) what happens when 2 black holes collide <br />3.) why in the first place a black hole was formed. i.e. why suddenly gain gravity? <br />4.) antigravity </font><br /><br /><br />There is nothing there that isn't explained in relativity. Other then Anti-gravity, which isn't anything more then a sci-fi dream. Are there other examples you can give that explain things that relativity can’t?
 
S

science_man

Guest
derekmcd,<br />What you said supports this theory. <br />"After it has cleared its neighborhood, it is no longer active."<br />according to the heat=gravity thing: It's no longer active because there isn't anything getting sucked in to create friction to create heat to create gravity. Thus it looses its gravitation pull as soon as it doesn't have enough particles colliding. <br />By "never ending cycle", I meant the constant pull of gravity because of continuous friction. Once there is not enough friction (heat) the gravity lessens. <br /><br />TheMage, Relativity only says its possible... not why its possible. For many things I said earlier, this heat-gravity theory may explain why it occurs instead of if its possible for it to occur. <br />Other than that, this theory can also explain why a singularity occurs.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
A black hole can still maintain objects in stable orbits without having an active accretion disc generating heat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
L

lukman

Guest
I also have theory, tremendeous gravity can tear spacetime, so do tremendeous heat can make a hole in spacetime. just like universe expanding the space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

themage

Guest
<font color="yellow">TheMage, Relativity only says its possible... not why its possible. For many things I said earlier, this heat-gravity theory may explain why it occurs instead of if its possible for it to occur. <br />Other than that, this theory can also explain why a singularity occurs. </font><br /><br />I will use example 3, black hole formation and you supposed gain in gravity. If I were to replace the sun with a black hole of exact mass, orbital patterns will stay the same. Nothing gets sucked into a large galactic monster that eats everything. Where do you come up with the idea that black holes suddenly gain gravity? I really don’t think you are doing yourself justice by providing examples and how your theory is better but not explaining how your theory interacts with these examples. <br /><br />Here is a simple experiment that you can do to prove if you are right or wrong. Get a piece of metal, any type that won’t melt easily. Next, put it on a scale and get something like a shrink tube gun that can go up to ohh lets say 850F. Hold the gun against the metal for a prolonged period of time and see if you gain weight or not. Since weight is just a by product of the items gravitational pull vs. the earths, you should see some type of difference. <br /><br />This is a very simple experiment you can do to prove yourself wrong or right. <br />
 
G

genius2007

Guest
The strong nuclear force is 10,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force combine to make the electroweak interaction and actually fuse together at 1,000,000,000,000,000 degrees K. It means they were only together around the time of the big bang. Now if the whole flow of gravity that we can feel and see and measure is only the very slight difference between just the nuclear weak force and the electromagnetic force ... that would mean gravity at the level of the atom would seem to be incredibly weak.<br /><br />What if heat was a factor in the early allocation of gravity then? I like to use stories to paint an idea. Since string theory uses gravity at a right angle it may be easier to picture as a sail.<br /><br />On a boat on a calm day the boat just sits in the water. Give it a breeze and there is more air on one side of the sail than the other. So the sail pushes the boat through the water. The push is at right angles to the sail.<br /><br />Now to look at the same picture using gravity density. Where there is no breeze there is equal pressure on the sail. The pressure like air pressure can be as strong as you like there is no movement. Call it the strong nuclear force.<br /><br />Here is the gravity flow idea, if one force say the weak nuclear force acted on one side and the electromagnetic on the other then the sail would move the boat if the forces were not exactly balanced. Gravity acts at the level of the atoms. So gravity we measure at the level of the atoms of the sail are ... weak nuclear force minus electromagnetic force.<br /><br />That is the idea anyway. It would take a mathematician to calculate the numbers. That is why I thought if I asked the question and someone could calculate the answer and take credit for that answer then I have saved myself years of study and received the answer I wanted so much more quickly. That is important to me because if I am wrong then I could have put those yea
 
N

newboncntry

Guest
It would seem to be more of the opposite, that gravity CAN create intense amount of energy thus creating intense amount of heat, not the other way around. If gravity were created by intense heat then wouldnt a black hole give out the most amount of heat in the galaxy whether or not it was consuming anything?
 
N

newboncntry

Guest
It would seem to be more of the opposite, that gravity CAN create intense amount of energy thus creating intense amount of heat, not the other way around. You have to think about how a star is made before you go that far. gravity naturally wants to pull things together, before the gasses and dust coalesce they are very cold. Until the friction of all the atoms being smashed together begins to creat heat and energy. If gravity were created by intense heat then wouldnt a black hole give out the most amount of heat in the galaxy whether or not it was consuming anything? I dont really think that gravity is caused by intense heat because gravity is always fighting to collapse the sun while the sun is constantly expending all its energy outwards to fight the pull of gravity, rather then creating it. Eventually when the sun does not have enough hydrogen or helium atoms to fuse, the sun will have to give in to the pull of gravity and begin to collapse on itself, untill it finds a ledge to stand on which for our sun would be an extremly dense "electron ball". A white dwarf is extremly dense and has an extremly strong gravitational pull, but does not give off much heat at all. Now if it were a star that is thousands of times the mass of our sun it would not be able to find a ledge to stand on and collapse into a black hole, which does not give off any heat at all. Although I'm not trying to disprove anything said here im just rasing questions that seem to be slipping through some cracks. Maybe your right, maybe gravity was orginally created by intense heat in the big bang. Or the big bang was an imense collapse of gravity creating lots of heat energy in the process, I really dont know the answer and im not a scientist. I just dont see heat creating gravity in the universe we know today.
 
G

genius2007

Guest
I am not a scientist either but I am curious about the six quantum dimensions and their effect on the universe. It has to be all connected somehow because the symmetries indicate the universe has rhythmic cycles far more in tune with a musical instrument than some debris left over after a violent hot start.<br /><br />So six quantum dimensions ... one idea is that they connect down to an inner universe but we do not see a quantum medium or just do not recognise it. <br /><br />The second idea is that six dimensions connect back up into a loop so that from any point look one way and it goes down to a point, turn around and it opens out. The simple explanation is a wedding ring, we are the diamond and the band connects to each side of us. Look one way and you look down into a cone shape because after a point you can't see all the way around. Look the other way and it seems like you are in the cone looking out until everything appears too far away to see.<br /><br />But that means we are inside the universe not part of an expansion ... oh hang on we are in the universe <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
B

brigandier

Guest
If this idea of yours is correct, then two heated objects would attract each other more than two cooler objects of the same mass. This isn't the case, though..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS