Jean Maxwell

Perhaps this might be of some use:

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

 

The preceding discussion makes clear the fact that general relativity is not a relational theory. Schwarzschild spacetime represents a cosmology with a definite preferred frame of reference, the one associated with the time-independent metric components. (Einstein was most disappointed when he first learned that the field equations have such an explicitly non-Machian solution, i.e., a single mass in an otherwise empty infinite universe)...

 

If we trace along the dotted spacelike surface "t = now" we find that the black hole doesn't exist at time t = now, which is to say, it is nowhere on the t = now timeslice. The event horizon is in the future of every external timeslice, all the way to future infinity...

Thats a doosie.

No universal reference frame? Im kinda outa my league here, but what if we used inflation as our clock? Time is a measure of change. Inflation is supposed to be equal in all parts of the observable universe. All galaxies are moving away at proportionate rates.

Ok, so temp is a measure of thermal energy, and heat is the transfer of energy?

So heat is not the same as temp. Gotcha.

Kinda subtle.

Motion = energy is probably more in line with the observation I wanted to express in that regard.

Im starting to see the limitations of that statement the more I research this also. ; - )

Bear with me guys im new to this, but I am thoroughly addicted and begin classes in the fall.

No debate here, I agree. Talking about heat in terms of motion continues to work even in respect to radiation other than thermal, and is not invalid regardless of semantics. (even as the "process" of transfer) this is not a fundamental difference in definitional at all.

I understand your point that in Physics to clarify what is ment by saying heat you define it as the process. But when discussing a topic you want to make clear what is occuring. What is occuring with-in the light radiation?

Even in your microwave example. How is the "heat" of a microwave determined? (frequency -- hmm makes me think motion again)

How is the Energy of a Microwave Expressed? Compare two different waves? If a wave travels with high frequency giving it greater energy what does that look like side by side with a low energy wave . . .

It all comes back to motion. I used the example of molecular motion becuase I thought thats what we where talking about in the example of a station in the antartic making use of a change in temp.

Question?

In physics, heat is a process, not a property.

At what point does the motion of atoms become a property? At what point does the Frequncy of radiation become a property? This is nonsense. So again I miss your point, and do not see where I made such a statement when describing the enteractions of atoms as giving rise to heat, and the felt nature of temp.

Breaking down things into process is how understanding occurs, that was my only point . . .

Beautifull, poetry takes confidence. It opens the door, allows us all a peek inside.

I particularly liked the Turtle reference as well, and I agree with the sentiment of rhyme, and meter. The same harmony that entrances us in music makes this style of poetry all the more touching for me.

Well, are we not all Time travelers?

We all move through time. If in the same inertial frame then at the same rate.

If we use more of our movement through space we use less of our movement through time.

obviously different than blink- differnt epoch, but still time travel. ; - )

Ahh Language

I do not think it has been settled, this question of total mass.

Estimates abound. If we had a decisive understanding of the mass, then we would also have very strong evidence to either the validity or the rejection of inflation as a standard model.

Most scientists agree on a close range which seems to suggest that mass leaking from black holes into "other universe" is not occuring, but again we have not settled other questions completeley quit yet.

teleology with out the teleology ; - )

It is not really an argument you can participate in with out placing it in the context of each of the other theories of comoslogical begginings. What is more difficult to believe in super levitating turtles or quantum fuzziness.

Its actually a very deep argument. I remain very skeptical, as anyone should that holds science in high regard, however to truely debate this material requires ALOT of logic string, and being willing to participate, many scientists and hobbiest are not willing to debate an anthropic topic (pun intended)

"The Cosmic Jackpot" is the book he lays all this out. Very interesting but well within the realm of philosphy due to the lack of experimental capabilities.

No, it's not. Ever use a microwave oven? Burn stuff with a magnifying glass, focusing the sunlight?

 

Molecular kinetic energy is thermal energy, but you can have thermal energy without any heat flow (i.e. in thermal equilibrium)

Yes, every day. The microwaves excite water Molecules generating heat. Motion of Atoms.

Heating the molecules speed up in there movement, so regardless of how they attain there heat atoms being heated is expressed in there motion. Transfer of heat is the kenetic interactions.

At room temp, air molecules move 5 miles/ minute, or the speed of sound. This makes great sense. If you raise the temp of the air, the molecules travel faster, and subsequently it will increase the speed of sound.

Photons strike atoms causing them to move. Very simple very true statment, im curious what you feel about that is invalid?

Well and look at what we have here. The expansion of the universe has been observed, if gravity where much different say it did function is such a way that more attraction was generated due to acceleration, or spin.

What would happen is that would GREATLY alter the balance of cosmic expansion. More gravity would require a greater outward surge of inflation, or expansion to balance to what we observe.

It would alter other observable phenomena such as the formation of galaxies, somthing that isnt fully understood yet, but is being studied heavily.

Very intersting line of thinking however.

As I was reading this post I began thinking about some abstractions of gravity.

I am fairly new to physics and understand certain things less than clearly.

(I hope I can effectivley explain this heh)

We observe all massive bodies form shperes for reasons of symmetry, and see the heaviest of materials "sift" to the center.

What IF we could organize the heavy material in a different fashion.

(I know I know it would inevitably crush itself back to a sphere)

But suspend disbelief for a moment and supose that we have a technology that could allow us to take the heaviest material and form it into whatever structures we wanted.

What shapes could we make that would significatly change the shape of spacetime?

Would it really change at all? Or would the force only be lessened, spacedout, and diffusal, canceling ect?

I guess alot of the answers to this question would come from a full understnding of the nature of Quantum gravity, and the nature of spacetime.

But its interesting to think about. My initial design was inverting mass from center to exterior and have us walking around on the inside of a sphere, but I quickly realized that if I used a quantum gravity thought process enteracting with a higs feild then it would not allow us to walk around the inside with a simple heavy "crust" and hollow interior. It would require massive "lumps" at intervals, and then I started to think well hell then I might as well make it a sphere, and again there is no point to the thought experiment.

But then I thought well, if spacetime is fabric like, then a spiral structure with super massive beams could "twist" it enough to detect. ( Whats the thoughts on high density energy such as the lasers possed in this guys "time Machine" theory http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html )

Also I dont really understand the fundamental reason energy could create gavity? any explaination would be awesome. ; - )

This idea is NOT original I know, but I wanted to hear other opinions, and perhaps I have not thought of something relevant that has been observed, or some geometry, Im very weak in maths, have just started my formal training.

if you would have read my post then you would know that i was talking about a specific type of heat transfer into energy being that you could only harness a change of less than a degree over a huge area and yet accumulate a reasonable quantity of energy and you would keep this plant in the antartica and north pole thus essentially keeping the temperature in those places in check and preventing desalination of our oceans. steam power is completely different as is nuclear and as is coal. my question was less can you use heat to make energy, though i did word it that way, and more for this specific use, or in terms of natural heat of the planet not artificial concentrated heat caused by combustion or other means specifically for the use of energy, only using that heat which exists in the atmosphere like a windmill does for wind. But not a windmill even though wind is technically caused by temperature differences.

 

thanks for the thermocouple idea though, ajb but upon reading, it says that thermocouples aren't really useful for changes in less than 1 degree C and also need to measure the difference between two points and so for this application it might not be so handy since the two points would need to be too far away. so i think in this case that wouldn't really work. still it was good to know.

 

I think for this application you would need something that works with absolute temperature. maybe something like a giant thermometer, giant in radius not height, that would push up a huge plate and get energy this way. the distance traveled by the plate in this case would need to be very small and the resistance very high so you can get alot of energy from it but perhaps this would be too inefficient to help regulate the temperatures there.

The issue with making use of change in heat to perform work or create electricity is that you need a closed system, to acomplish this on the level you refer to would require a huge facility to make use of the temp change to a great enough degree (pun intended)

(And about heat being the transfer of energy, I think a more specific definition is heat is molecular kinetic energy, heat is the motion of atoms)

I agree lets use information from a top down veiw, make it as specific as possible, then if it needs clarification the indivual can speek out asking for such clarification, I know when something interests me I will ask a multitude of questions to better understand and be able to relate it in a more practical way.

I am curious about the differing range of energy that encompasses Cosmic rays, and the change in energectic reactions (in the atmosphere) from our sun as it changes from a state of low quantities of solar flare to high quantity, ( hope I stated that meaningfully teehee)

Anyone have an info on the subjeck?