Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: For the physicists in the house.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: For the physicists in the house. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 9:53:48 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

And, how many million megatons of heat are decending upon our earth from the sun at any given instant? How much does the light weigh that we see around us on our earth?


The mass of the photons (light) from the sun striking the earth every second is 2.5 kg/s.

quote:


Since sunlight has energy, it also has a mass associated with it as indicated by Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2 or m = E/(c^2).

An elementary textbook says the sun converts 4.2 x 10^9 kg of mass to energy every second. Using this number, we can estimate the amount of energy (mass) from the sun hitting the earth by calculating the fraction of the entire solid angle the earth intercepts as seen by the sun. Since the diameter of the earth is about 1.3 x 10^7 m and it is 1.5 x 10^11 m from the sun, it subtends an angle of about 8.7 x 10^-5 radians. If we square this angle and divide by 4 pi = 12.6, we get the solid angle fraction subtended by the earth, which I calculate to be about 6 x 10^-10 of the entire solid angle. Multiplying this by the 4.2 x 10^9 kg burned by the sun every second and we obtain 2.5 kg/s as the mass of the photons (light) from the sun striking the earth every second.

There is another way to guesstimate this number using the rough estimate of 1 kW/m^2 as the energy of the sunlight striking the earth. Multiplying this by the area of a disk with the area of the cross section of the earth (pi x R^2 = 1.3 x 10^14 m^2) gives 1.3 x 10^17 J/s. Dividing this by the velocity of light squared (c^2 = 9 x 10^16) gives 1.4 kg/s. I consider this to be in excellent agreement with the figure of 2.5 kg/s obtained above.

Please let me know if you find this less than clear or would like more information or explanation.

Best, Dick Plano, Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00644.htm

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 9:56:35 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

And, how many million megatons of heat are decending upon our earth from the sun at any given instant? How much does the light weigh that we see around us on our earth?


The mass of the photons (light) from the sun striking the earth every second is 2.5 kg/s.

quote:


Since sunlight has energy, it also has a mass associated with it as indicated by Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2 or m = E/(c^2).

An elementary textbook says the sun converts 4.2 x 10^9 kg of mass to energy every second. Using this number, we can estimate the amount of energy (mass) from the sun hitting the earth by calculating the fraction of the entire solid angle the earth intercepts as seen by the sun. Since the diameter of the earth is about 1.3 x 10^7 m and it is 1.5 x 10^11 m from the sun, it subtends an angle of about 8.7 x 10^-5 radians. If we square this angle and divide by 4 pi = 12.6, we get the solid angle fraction subtended by the earth, which I calculate to be about 6 x 10^-10 of the entire solid angle. Multiplying this by the 4.2 x 10^9 kg burned by the sun every second and we obtain 2.5 kg/s as the mass of the photons (light) from the sun striking the earth every second.

There is another way to guesstimate this number using the rough estimate of 1 kW/m^2 as the energy of the sunlight striking the earth. Multiplying this by the area of a disk with the area of the cross section of the earth (pi x R^2 = 1.3 x 10^14 m^2) gives 1.3 x 10^17 J/s. Dividing this by the velocity of light squared (c^2 = 9 x 10^16) gives 1.4 kg/s. I consider this to be in excellent agreement with the figure of 2.5 kg/s obtained above.

Please let me know if you find this less than clear or would like more information or explanation.

Best, Dick Plano, Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00644.htm


But don't forget that the earth is simultaneously reradiating almost exactly the same via reflectance and infra red.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 3:05:48 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Ah . . . no.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 3:08:40 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
If we gave off like we got our average temperature would be -18C year round.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/radiationbalance.htm

There's more but pictures are easy.

Be sure to watch the animation.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/3/2013 3:10:16 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 3:24:10 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
The problem is that temperature is a metric of energy, and energy has mass, but the temps we experience mean kinetic motions that are only relativistically Very small. Increase in kinetic energy (vibration of molecules) increases mass but only in relation to that Delta (change of) speed divided by C, the speed of light. This is hard to measure with common household objects?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 6:24:36 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Is, by mass-energy equivalence, the thermal energy of an object part of its effective gravitational mass?

Or, phrased differently, does the gravitation of an object depend in part on its heat?

The intuitive answer seems to be yes, but IANAP.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Interesting that you pose that....

First, mass energy equivalence is only transposed by virtue of the heat deflection that is dispersed by its own tangent (which can, as most might know, be expressed by no less than X= 7/23 plus the obvious [23/11th at gravity (assuming gravity at 1.71375) less the assumptions of least path, over dynamic reference] belying of course all the obvious assumptions as to gain on the 4th pull...plus the second dynamic.

Which is of course to say....you can't get there without doing the gravitational expressions which are by default, only in their (obvious) stack.

I think that's fairly clear (to most).

So, that being said, it's then more than prescient....you can't have one without the other.

I believe I've expressed the obvious here.

To try and differentiate between the two (clear) poles is really a waste of time and frankly....a portent to what finally results.

< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 1/3/2013 6:28:07 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 6:28:37 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ah . . . no.

Are you saying the earth doesn't radiate Ir and reflect light?

I beg to differ. that would make our planet a theoretical "black body" (don't get exceited ladies, Im not talking about..yaknow )

A black body absorbs all photonic energy and reradiates none. Such an entity will soon vaporize due to absorbed heat.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/3/2013 7:36:23 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
No. Now I remember why I stopped wasting time here.

quote:

the earth is simultaneously reradiating almost exactly the same via reflectance and infra red.


That's the issue you raised. Not whether reflection and radiation happens.

And neither has any relevance for the point raised in my post.

I'll leave y'all to the madhouse. Knock each other out.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 4:40:15 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
The actual question was one about whether an object's kinetic energy influences its gravitational mass.

That said, as regards thermal radiation, a blackbody radiates based on its temperature, and absorbs as effectively as it radiates. Reflectors of thermal infrared do not radiate well. Water is a very close approximation of a blackbody. The Earth does radiate close to what it absorbs. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that blackbodies don't radiate, Hillwilliam.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 5:50:42 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

The problem is that temperature is a metric of energy, and energy has mass, but the temps we experience mean kinetic motions that are only relativistically Very small. Increase in kinetic energy (vibration of molecules) increases mass but only in relation to that Delta (change of) speed divided by C, the speed of light. This is hard to measure with common household objects?


Precisely, and that is why you can use newton for most gravity and inertia and mass calculations (only when very big or very very small or very fast do we have to go out with a better class of girl and get the better answer).

The earth is not round, but for most discussions, it will work.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 5:54:34 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

The actual question was one about whether an object's kinetic energy influences its gravitational mass.

That said, as regards thermal radiation, a blackbody radiates based on its temperature, and absorbs as effectively as it radiates. Reflectors of thermal infrared do not radiate well. Water is a very close approximation of a blackbody. The Earth does radiate close to what it absorbs. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that blackbodies don't radiate, Hillwilliam.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


I was using an example of a theoretical body that only absorbs energy and never reradiates.
By definition, such a body wouldn't last long unless it had several stellar masses and therefore would be able to collapse into a singuarity.
Otherwise, the temperature would get so high, it would vaporize.

I said theoretical because I know of no body above absolute zero that isn't a singularity that doesn't radiate.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 5:57:57 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
collapsed stars are hot, because they are collapsed.




< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/4/2013 5:58:30 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 5:59:54 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

collapsed stars are hot, because they are collapsed.




Black holes don't radiate photonic energy though.
The accretion disk does but the singularity itself doesnt.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 1/4/2013 6:00:04 AM >


_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 6:02:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Agreed but that is because the radiation cannot escape the gravity of the mass, but it is one nasty motherfucker inside that horizon.

and you can quote me.

 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 6:08:48 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Basics again.

E  =  M( c*c)  it is squared to get the units right.

but looking at the thing, we realize that c is a constant........ unchangeable.

How do we get more E? increase M.
How do we get more M? increade E.

end of joke. (M of course since it is a multiplied dealio is making the greater stride.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 6:44:07 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Only physics I know is what the army taught me.

10lbs of C4+blasting medium= one nice big boom.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 11:48:42 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

The actual question was one about whether an object's kinetic energy influences its gravitational mass


I always think in basic terms...simple where possible. The above statement has been in my thoughts for sometime and I have gotten conflicting, at least with me and seeming common sense, answers to this question from a civil engineer and a science teacher at our high school. Granted neither would be considered experts…but neither are we.

The question I asked them which is essentially the same statement above is.

If I placed my foot in a pothole, exactly fitting side to side and exactly matching the top of the hole, in the highway on top of a precise scale and drove a vehicle over my foot at 10 miles per hour and at 100 miles per hour would the reading on the scale, when the vehicle passed over my foot, be to same. Otherwise would the forward speed of the vehicle reduce its weight on the road. The same example could be uses with shooting a bullet. Both say no.. the reading on the scale would be exactly the same. The only difference would be the duration of weight.

So the answer to the question Aswad would be no… straight line kinetic energy has no effect on gravitational mass. At least according to them…I’m not so sure.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 1/4/2013 11:54:16 AM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 11:52:23 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Ek = ½mv^2
Ep=mgh
Ek= Ep

Ek = Kinetic Energy
Ep = Potential Energy
m = mass
v = velocity
g = acceleration due to gravity
h = height so, yeah.........sorry Butch.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 11:56:01 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Ron...what the hell did you say..lol.. would the weight be the same or different.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: For the physicists in the house. - 1/4/2013 1:03:19 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
simple math.  But screw that, lets do the logic.  the mass would have to increase, kinetic energy is the energy of its motion.

An increase in velocity increases the mass. there isn't anything else we got to choose from in those formulas.  note that the acceleration here is due to gravity, not to light speed, it is small..........very small.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: For the physicists in the house. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096