Fission versus Fusion: 101

Page 5 - 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.
L

larper

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>(hydrogen + ion) + (hydrogen + ion) + (hydrogen + ion) + (hydrogen + ion) = (4He + 4ion) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />HA HA! Very funny. Reminds me of a highschool math joke: What is ln4/ln1? Answer: 4. The ln's cancel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How do I increase its mass? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Trick question! By accelerating it up to relativistic velocities.<br /><br />Doesn't change its rest mass though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Velocity affects: Mass, length, and time, and gravity affects: Mass, length, and time. Am shopping for a weightless mass that I can place in an expanable bladder or balloon, in which I want total control of temperature. I may or may not want this mass charged. Why?
 
J

jatslo

Guest
<font color="yellow">Doesn't change its rest mass though</font><br /><br />Well now, this is contradictive to something.
 
L

larper

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well now, this is contradictive to something. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Um... no its not. About the only thing that it contradicts is intuition. It does not contradict reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
I disagree; I know the mass will increase and decrease. Oh, you said rest mass, sorry. Yes, rest mass will not change for it.
 
J

jatslo

Guest
That is why even though it is massive relative to us its weight is relatively weightless, because its rest mass is the same. This is exactely the effect that I want.
 
L

larper

Guest
Your last post was garbled again in transmission.<br /><br />Weight is not a property of matter. A mass moving at relativistic speeds in a gravitational field will "weigh" more than it does when at rest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
I found another religious link: (The four horsemen of the apocalypse) = (<sup>4</sup>He), as in (He + aven) + (He ll) = {IT} . <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Okay, we break down here: Increased mass is not mitosis; whoever theorized that, made FUBAR of the whole shebang.
 
J

jatslo

Guest
<font color="yellow">Weight is not a property of matter. A mass moving at relativistic speeds in a gravitational field will "weigh" more than it does when at rest.</font><br /><br />Here I reworded it:<br /><br />That is why even though it is massive relative to us its weight is relatively weightless, because its rest mass weighs less than it does from my perspective. This is exactly the effect that I want; I want it to weigh more, as in repulsive force or –(G). I want to know where that theory, so I can bash the crap out of it.
 
L

larper

Guest
It is not a theory. It is established, verifiable, repeatable, tested, quantified, undeniable fact. The word "weight" is meaningless in a scientific discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
weight of a molecule of a substance expressed in atomic mass units (amu). The molecular weight may be calculated from the molecular formula of the substance; it is the sum of the atomic weights of the atoms making up the molecule. For example, water has the molecular formula H 2 O, indicating that there are two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in a molecule of water. Rounded to three decimal places, the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008 amu and that of oxygen is 15.999 amu. The molecular weight of water is thus (2×1.008)+(1×15.999)=2.016+15.999=18.015 amu. Since atomic weights are average values, molecular weights are also average values. On the average, a molecule of ordinary water weighs 18.015 amu. Both hydrogen and oxygen are made up of several isotopes. One isotope of hydrogen is deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. Atoms of deuterium are about twice as massive as the average for all hydrogen atoms in ordinary water. Therefore water that contains only atoms of deuterium, called heavy water, has a higher molecular weight than ordinary water. Some substances, especially ionic compounds such as common salt, are not made up of molecules and thus have neither a molecular formula nor a molecular weight. Molecular weights of substances may be determined experimentally in various ways, the method employed usually depending on the state (solid, liquid, or gas) of the substance. Methods for determining the molecular weights of gaseous substances are based on Avogadro's law, which states that under given conditions of temperature and pressure a given volume of any gas contains a specific number of molecules of the gas; thus a comparison of the weights of equal volumes of different gases under the same conditions of temperature and pressure is equivalent to a direct comparison of the weights of molecules of the gases. The molecular weights of substances that are not normally gaseous and do not evaporate without decomposition are sometimes determined from their effect
 
L

larper

Guest
Weight (and weightlessness) are not properties of matter. "Weight" is not a modern scientific term. The terms "atomic weight" and "atomic mass" are bandied about and used interchangebly, but that is simply an anachronism.<br /><br />This is the best "up your post count" thread ever created. Great idea. Better than those silly word association threads. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
If I increase the mass of helium, or multiple the He by 1-million to quantify a mass, the mass will have increased lift. Pressure, Temperture, Velocity, and multiplication will increase the mass, and increase lift, because it is a gas, for starters.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Correct.<br /><br />Weight is simply a term used to characterize the force due to gravity on a mass. It is a secondary vector quantity, depending on other quantities. It is in no way an inherent property of an object.<br /><br />By the way, jatso, here is an interesting thought problem:<br /><br />I have a baseball. Through the magic and the power vested in me by the Arkum Assylum for the Criminally Insane, I reverse the sign on the baseball's mass, and *its* mass alone. (I would try and change my mass, but that involves diet and exercise, not magic).<br /><br />I release it.<br /><br />What happens?<br /><br />Treat it as a problem in classical mechanics.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
Define lift. You have introduced a new term. Define it. What is lift? What property of matter is lift? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
Negative mass? Hmm. Interesting. <br />Well, Newton would say, Fg=Gm1m2/r^2. So, the force of gravity would be negative, but would decrease with distance. It would shoot off into space? At ever increasing velocity, but ever decreasing acceleration? I think it would accel past escape velocity on toward c. (It might asymptotically approach escape velocity. Would have to actually work the integral, but am too lazy).<br /><br />Einstein would say that E=mc^2. So the object has negative rest energy. It becomes an energy sink? <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Hello, I thought we were talking about rest, and now you guys are spinning it and shooting it across the mouth of a black hole. Hey, I am well aware of that feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum trick; however, we are talking about helium.
 
L

larper

Guest
No, you introduced a new term, "lift". What is lift? What property of matter is lift? How does increasing the amount of matter increase lift? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
That is kind of like the experiment I set up. That is what I see. That is exactly what I see, I think. Unless your wording is frag
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"It goes up?"<br /><br />Nope. You have to look at two aspects of the problem, how the force on the object changes,*and*, how the object responds to the force.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
F = (-m)a; it won't go up because of equilibrium is shifted towards the Earth advantage, but that is why I need to be off the equator, and as far away from the planet core as possible, so that I shift equilibrium and leave this world at 186,000<sup>100</sup> miles-per-second. You do realize that I expect -(F) as we get further from our star, and that my EM field will push the ether out of the way. Anyway, I know how to do this, and I am finally glad that someone picked up on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS