Light Waves..WTF????

[HUGGY]

Ya..OK... Do you really think a blob of liquefied iron is going to generate it's own heat just by it's own weight and mass?

Yes, I do. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanical State.

Do you believe that scrawny little patch of nitrogen and oxygen is capturing enough heat to make ANY difference against the cold of outer space? It is a whole lot easier for me to believe that squeezing something creates heat more than just the over all size. I see gravity as a form of exterior pressure.

Yes, I do. And the source of heat is interior, by the laws above, not exterior. The rotation is what the source of the centric condition, and Celestial Dynamics, that govern how much that G force is: Earth is millions of times less than the surface of Jupiter, and it is a 1000 times the size of the Earth, for an example. The gravitational effect is much greater then.

It should be easy enough to prove the molten mass heat generation theory. Even on a smaller scale there should be measurable heat definition that supports generation on a 900 mile diameter object.

There is. That equation is (-P)+[Q= MCS( t+i)]≥V†∂/T=(åß)x900∑=N
N=thermal couple of fixed state mass.

The equation might be tough if you are not up on Differential Equations but it works exactly as surmised.

Hope this is a little helpful.

Robert

True enough. I am curious if a constant such as my proposed outside pressure theory would change the equation. It seems to me that a constant would cancel out and the equation would still be the same. That is if that particular equation is a prediction or an explanation/description would it make any difference? I guess if mass of equal size could be compared in different parts of the universe would be one way to test my idea. My idea would predict less "gravity" in the farther reaches of the universe. If the above equation is assumed to apply universally then probably not. You are absolutely correct. This may just be over my head. Some of what drives my curiosity is that science has clung to many well thought out explanations only to discover that they do not apply in all cases or conditions. I guess there is not harm in exploring. Being wrong does me no harm. I really do appreciate your patience and tolerance for the uneducated. Thank you.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

True enough. I am curious if a constant such as my proposed outside pressure theory would change the equation. It seems to me that a constant would cancel out and the equation would still be the same. That is if that particular equation is a prediction or an explanation/description would it make any difference? I guess if mass of equal size could be compared in different parts of the universe would be one way to test my idea. My idea would predict less "gravity" in the farther reaches of the universe. If the above equation is assumed to apply universally then probably not. You are absolutely correct. This may just be over my head. Some of what drives my curiosity is that science has clung to many well thought out explanations only to discover that they do not apply in all cases or conditions. I guess there is not harm in exploring. Being wrong does me no harm. I really do appreciate your patience and tolerance for the uneducated. Thank you.

An Equation is a statement, with the variable being the input. The Sum is the outcome of the variable thus computed. So, the sum--i.e. answer--is a fact.

A Suppositional Hypothesis leaves everything to posturing or conjecture to then be assumed or analyzed. This is the course of term in Astrophysics. This latter is what you are doing. It is also valid.

Equal parts mass, in any location will have the same laws governing same.

Your humility is noble and sound and speaks well for you. But remember, all Science is the seeking of fact, and on that road, is 100% error. Without the error, discovery cannot happen. I am wrong on everything but my 1983 CJ-7 Jeep and my GFs garters, about 99.99% of the time in vectors I assume, but cannot prove or know. Thus, you are on the right track! Well done then, along with the rest of these great topic-queries.

And too, our reach should always exceed our grasp, or what is heaven for? --Robert Browning

Robert

 

[Ropey]

This sort of thing can turn up in Nature; for example, the beam of light from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud. A bright explosion emits an expanding spherical shell of light or other radiation. When this shell intersects a surface, it creates a circle of light which expands faster than light.

Faster Than Light

Faster-than-light' particles may have been even speedier

Subatomic particles clocked at speeds exceeding the speed of light may have been going even faster than they appeared, physicists say.

A problem with some of the equipment used in the original experiment may have led to an overestimate of the time it took the particles, known as neutrinos, to make their 730-kilometre journey, reported CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in a statement Thursday.

As a result, their speed may have been underestimated.

'Faster-than-light' particles may have been even speedier - World - CBC News

Interesting times indeed.

Faster-Than-Light Discovery Raises Prospect of Time Travel | CERN Neutrino Experiment | Time Travel Potential & Barriers | LiveScience

 

[Ropey]

 

[FA_Q2]

So far, very interesting thread.

This is fairly accurate, missing only the equation that is a given: E=Mc2. Suffice to say there are 2 constants in the cosmos: Speed of Light (SoL) and the Weak Force. The latter is gravity, the first is the absolute constant for speed. The variable is that light can and does bend, like the distortion of looking into a clear pond of water. Its speed remains the same, however.

Am I misreading what you are saying because light, itself can and does change speed regularly when passing through a medium?!?

Physicists Slow Speed of Light

Protons have not been collided at slightly faster than the speed of light?

As far as I know, nothing travels faster than the speed of light and certainly not something that has mass. If Einstein was correct, such a thing (matter traveling faster than the speed of light) is not possible.

This sort of thing can turn up in Nature; for example, the beam of light from a pulsar can sweep across a dust cloud. A bright explosion emits an expanding spherical shell of light or other radiation. When this shell intersects a surface, it creates a circle of light which expands faster than light.

Faster Than Light

Faster-than-light' particles may have been even speedier

Subatomic particles clocked at speeds exceeding the speed of light may have been going even faster than they appeared, physicists say.

A problem with some of the equipment used in the original experiment may have led to an overestimate of the time it took the particles, known as neutrinos, to make their 730-kilometre journey, reported CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in a statement Thursday.

As a result, their speed may have been underestimated.

'Faster-than-light' particles may have been even speedier - World - CBC News

Interesting times indeed.

Faster-Than-Light Discovery Raises Prospect of Time Travel | CERN Neutrino Experiment | Time Travel Potential & Barriers | LiveScience

Yes interesting but the findings are so outside what was expected that the original people to make this discovery don't even believe that it was true. From what I gather, it has not been confirmed yet. Will be infesting if it does turn out though. Throws a wrench in the understanding of how our world works.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have a hard time buying that light changes back and forth from a particle to energy and back again without being acted upon by some force or thing.

Why does it have to change from one form to the other? It seems a better explanation that it acts as BOTH - period. I don't think that it ever changes form rather it shows us that all things might actually exist at some point in-between the two. Light just happens to be somewhere in the middle where we can observe both behaviors.

 

[Ropey]

Throws a wrench in the understanding of how our world works.

And how many times has a wrench been thrown? We await another wrench.

 

[HUGGY]

I have a hard time buying that light changes back and forth from a particle to energy and back again without being acted upon by some force or thing.

Why does it have to change from one form to the other? It seems a better explanation that it acts as BOTH - period. I don't think that it ever changes form rather it shows us that all things might actually exist at some point in-between the two. Light just happens to be somewhere in the middle where we can observe both behaviors.

Well...that certainly shines a particle on it!

 

[Ropey]

I have a hard time buying that light changes back and forth from a particle to energy and back again without being acted upon by some force or thing.

Why does it have to change from one form to the other? It seems a better explanation that it acts as BOTH - period. I don't think that it ever changes form rather it shows us that all things might actually exist at some point in-between the two. Light just happens to be somewhere in the middle where we can observe both behaviors.

Well...that certainly shines a particle on it!

Aren't you the particular one.