Neoclassical Potential Energy

[origin]

<font color="yellow">I assume you have passed some good physics courses.</font><br /><br />I am not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. I am an engineer and yes I have taken several very well taught physics courses.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">So tell us, what would be the average gravity force between the Galactic Centre and 1) the apple and 2) the satellite?</font><br /><br />As I am sure that you know the gravitational attraction between the GC core and an apple would be essentially identical to the gravitation attraction between the GC and a 1 ton satellite.<br /><br />And of course if they had the same starting conditions, they would have the same velocities in the GC's gravitational field.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

The fission reaction of the Hiroshima bomb did release great amounts of blast, thermal and radioactive energy, but it far from prove the equation E=mc^2.<br />In a fission reaction, such as the Hiroshima bomb; 1 proton split U(235) into Kr(92) + Ba(141) and 3 protons. No mass is converted to pure energy, only the energy that binds the nucleus together.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Physical_overview<br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">In a fission reaction, such as the Hiroshima bomb; 1 proton split U(235) into Kr(92) + Ba(141) and 3 protons. No mass is converted to pure energy, only the energy that binds the nucleus together.</font><br /><br />Not protons - neutrons!<br /><br />The mass of the parts (fission products and neutrons) is < the mass of the U235. The lost mass is converted to energy in the following proportions E=mc^2.<br /><br />This is not the first time this has been explained to you!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

Origin wrote: The mass of the parts (fission products and neutrons) is < the mass of the U235. The lost mass is converted to energy in the following proportions E=mc^2. <br />This is not the first time this has been explained to you!<br />----------------------------------------<br /><br />You can call your opinions for 'explanations' again and again. Still it’s wrong.<br />Take a careful look at the article and image again<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Physical_overview<br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Nuclear_fission.svg/309px-<br /><br />No nucleuses are converted from mass to energy, as in the E=mc^2 dogma.<br />One atom is simply split into two.<br /><br />True about my typo though, it’s about neutrons, not protons.<br />

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You can call your opinions for 'explanations' again and again. Still it’s wrong. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Still sniffin' your own outgassing, eh?<br /><br />It is absolute fact that the sum of the masses of two fission nuclei is less than the mass of the original nucleus. Mass is turned into energy. This is undeniable. <br /><br />You cannot simply count up the particles and conclude that no mass changed into energy. Mass and particles are not the same things. <br /><br />Heck, even in the article you point to as your source says:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The total rest masses of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus (M). The excess mass Δm = M - Mp is the invariant mass of the energy that is released as photons (gamma rays) and kinetic energy of the fission fragments, according to the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc². </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Vidar wrote:<br />You can call your opinions for 'explanations' again and again. Still it’s wrong. <br />Take a careful look at the article and image again <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Physical_overview <br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Nuclear_fission.svg/309px- <br /><br />No nucleuses are converted from mass to energy, as in the E=mc^2 dogma. <br />One atom is simply split into two.<br />-----------------------<br /><br />Larper wrote:<br />Still sniffin' your own outgassing, eh?<br />

 

[vidar]

Let’s say relevant velocities are:<br />Satellite escape velocity: 1*10^4 m/s<br />Earth orbital velocity: 3*10^4 m/s <br />Sun orbital velocity: 2*10^5 m/s <br />Fall to Galactic Centre: 2*10^6 m/s <br />Light speed: 3*10^8 m/s<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities<br /><br />The satellite orbits the Earth and both of them orbit the Sun. Once a year, the satellite’s velocity vectors will point towards the Galactic Centre.<br />If the satellite, on that day, was given a boost to in that direction, it would gain a starting speed, in addition to the accelerating fall toward the massive black hole in the Galactic Centre.<br />I suppose that would be a starting speed of 4*10^4 m/s.<br />Is this right?<br />

 

[vidar]

The gravity forces of the universe was overrated. Still they area most uncertain. No one knows the gravity of our Galactical Center, or the other 10^10 Galactic Centres in the universe, - or all the other mass the universe holds. Masses elsewhere in the universe hold potential energy different to our Earthly energy.<br /><br />Still the potential energy; E=mgh, is a considerable energy factor that the einsteinian energy hypothesis missed. Still we now know that any mass holds other potential energies like; Chemical-, Electrical-, Electrostatical-, Electrodynamic-, Nuclear- and Thermal- potential energy. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy<br /><br />Lets say for now that an earthly object has a gravity potential energy E = m 10^6 for an object on Earth related to our Galactical Center.<br />Now, I have admitted my overoptimistic calculations for gravity energy E=mgh.<br />The challenge is then to figure out the true potential energy of any mass by calculating all the other kind of potential energies to any mass.<br />

 

[origin]

E=mc^2 has nothing to do with potential energy, it only has to do with the mass - energy equivelance!<br /><br />Are you ever going to get that?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't think so <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <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>

 

[vidar]

Origin wrote:<br />E=mc^2 has nothing to do with potential energy, it only has to do with the mass - energy equivelance! <br />Are you ever going to get that?<br />-----------------------------<br /><br />Why do you ask that question?<br />I wrote:<br />Still the potential energy; E=mgh, is a considerable energy factor that the einsteinian energy hypothesis missed. Still we now know that any mass holds other potential energies like; Chemical-, Electrical-, Electrostatical-, Electrodynamic-, Nuclear- and Thermal- potential energy. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy<br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">Origin wrote: <br />E=mc^2 has nothing to do with potential energy, it only has to do with the mass - energy equivelance! <br /><b>Are you ever going to get that?</b></font><br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Vidar replied:<br />Why do you ask that question? <br />I wrote: <br />Still the potential energy; E=mgh, is a considerable energy factor that the einsteinian energy hypothesis missed. Still we now know that any mass holds other potential energies like; Chemical-, Electrical-, Electrostatical-, Electrodynamic-, Nuclear- and Thermal- potential energy.</font><br /><br />A more concise reply would have been - "No, I am never goig to get it." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

Sure.<br />You replied: "No, I am never goig to get it."<br />.. to my statement that:<br />"Still the potential energy; E=mgh, is a considerable energy factor that the einsteinian energy hypothesis missed. Still we now know that any mass holds other potential energies like; Chemical-, Electrical-, Electrostatical-, Electrodynamic-, Nuclear- and Thermal- potential energy."<br /><br />What’s ‘goig’ by the way?<br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">What’s ‘goig’ by the way?</font><br /><br />It is a misspelling of 'going'.<br /><br />My finger missing the 'n' key still does not help your case unfortunately. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

It was wrong to think that Newtons apple, related to our Galactic Centre, could have a potential energy Ep that’s (mc^2)^3 larger than the theoretical mass–energy equivalence E=mc^2. The distance and the total mass are not sufficient.<br /><br />However, there is a question of how large a mass and how far a distance it takes to make it so. <br /><br />There is this BigCrunch Theory, which is related to the BigBang Theory, that says that the expanding universe finaly reverses and recollapses, ending as a black hole singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch<br /><br />If so, and if the apple is one of the last objects to fall to the new Universal Centre, at some point, the E=mgh exceeds the E=mc^2. That could be at the point when the apple is at a distance at 10^12 meters from that hypothetical Universal Centre. From then Ep grows.<br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">at some point, the E=mgh exceeds the E=mc^2.</font><br /><br />No, it doesn't.<br /><br />E = KE + PE<br /><br />At the event horizon all of the PE is converted to KE and that would be less than E=mc^2. <br /><br />So that energy, which is less than E=mc^2, is the maximum that the PE could reach if all of the KE was converted to PE.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

Origin wrote: <br />No, it doesn't. <br />E = KE + PE <br />At the event horizon all of the PE is converted to KE and that would be less than E=mc^2. <br />So that energy, which is less than E=mc^2, is the maximum that the PE could reach if all of the KE was converted to PE. <br />-----------------------------------------------------<br /><br />C^2 is a constant factor and determined to be (299,792,458)^2 ≈ 10^17<br />It’s possible to find where theoretically the Ep equals Et (Einstein’s mass - energy equivalence)<br />Ep = Et - /> mgh = mc^2 -> gh = 10^17 -> h = 10^17/g<br /><br />It’s not possible to determine the total mass of the universe as in the BigCrunch Theory.<br />But one can assume that the universe holds 10^10 galaxies with 10^10 solar masses each. <br />Knowing that our Sun’s mass is about 2*10^30 kg, makes the total universal mass more than 10^50 kg. <br /><br />G is a universal constant about G ≈ 1/(10^10)<br />Newton's law of universal gravitation says that F=G(M)/r^2 = /> <br />g = G(M)/r^2 = 10^50/10^10 / r^2 = /> g =10^40 / r^2<br />In this case, one can say that the distances, r and h are the same; h=r<br />h = 10^17/g = /> h = 10^17 / (10^40 / r^2) => h = h^2 / 10^23<br />h = 10^23<br />An object at 1 kg get a potential energy that equals E=mc^2 at a distance at 10^23 meters from a BigCrunched Universe. <br />(Added note: The distance is 10^7 light-years. That’s about the distance to the nearest galaxy cluster.)<br />From that point Ep is greater than E=mc^2<br /><br />I would like to see some real explanation for why Ep can’t be greater than E=mc^2

 

[larper]

Once again, the entire real world asks you "So what?"<br /><br />What does potential energy have to do with E=mc^2?<br /><br />Nothing. The answer is nothing. Potential energy is just that, potential. Since it is not ACTUAL energy, it can be any number you wish it to be.<br /><br />Now, eject gaseous fumes, inhale, and repeat your drivel, as is your form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Let me ask a question. Imagine 2 identical suns orbiting each other at distance D. Now place a planet eactly inbetween them, at D/2 from each. What's the potential energy of the planet ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Larper<br /><br />Your postings usually have some rather good opinions based on matter-of-facts.<br />Then you blow your credibility up with some childish expressions about farts.<br />Finally you state; ‘Vote Libertarian’.<br />

 

[vidar]

The planet will have 2 gravity forces in opposite direction towards the stars that will keep the planet in balance. However, I don’t think it will stay in such a perfect balance for long. <br />The potential energy can’t be calculated, because you don’t tell the mass or distance.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Vector_form<br /><br />Why do you ask?<br />

 

[larper]

At least I am only blowing my credibility with fart jokes. You blow your credibility with your constant refusal to accept reality, and your belief that you are smarter than every other physicist out there. <br /><br /><b>guru</b> GOO - roo, noun;<br />One who likes to smell his own farts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Oh, I didn’t realise that this is about you and ‘every other physicist out there’ vs me.<br />Is that the reality you say I constant refuse to accept?