Jump to content
Complexity

How is mass divided by volume to measure density ?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density  in terms of physically splitting things.

If I take an apple and dice it into 1cm cubes then the number of cubes I get is (approximately) the volume of the apple.

And, I have similarly shared out all the mass of the apple among all those cubes.

The density of the apple is the average mass of each cube.

 

The question "what divides the apple?" is a bit meaningless, but as good an answer as any is "my imagination".

 

 

 

If you take an apple and dice it into equal segments or cubes , the answer to what divides the apple in this instance is, yourself divides the apple by applying force with a knife . 

 

You would be the ''adverb'' . 

 

It is a causality answer and not meaningless .  

 

'

Quote

If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density  in terms of physically splitting things.

 

I  don't  consider it is stupid to want the  entire answer in full , I consider completeness .  We know the effect of light but we do not know at this time the cause of the speed and distribution over a volume . 

In thermodynamics high energy state objects  pass energy  to lower energy state objects . The energy traverses to the receiver , the motion isn't magic , there is an answer of why and I believe that answer is an attractive force .  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were asked to divide 20 by 5, would you say 4, or would you say "depends, 20 of what ?" as if it makes a difference.
You might consider that 'completeness', the rest of us consider it the opposite of acute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Because it is a wavefront that radiates from the source.

 

Radiates by the cause push or pull ? 

The answer is one of the two answers offered and because of my prior light passing through glass scenario , I am swayed towards pull is the answer !  The thereafter the glass having less energy than the glass . The energy  before the glass being the flow of light and as in spectral emissions the flow can't invert as before the glass has higher energy . 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2020-01-19 at 5.23.15 AM.png

Screenshot 2020-01-19 at 5.43.30 AM.png

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'd be wrong.
AGAIN !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you'd be wrong.
AGAIN !

If there is no answer any of you can give of why  !  How can you say I am wrong ? 

The evidence of thermodynamics and spectral emissions suggests I am correct in my thoughts .  Objects in a state of high energy always pass energy to objects in a state of less energy . My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental  foundations . 

 

Of course I am open minded enough to accept a different answer providing there is some provided facts as I've provided .  

10 hours ago, MigL said:

That is a perfectly valid Newtonian equation.

Now substitute values in for the variables.
For light, m=mo=0  IOW it has zero rest mass because it can never be at rest.
So your perfectly valid equation, when mis-applied in the case of light or heat, gives you the non-sensical solution 0=0.

Now you're doing Physics :P .
( being very sarcastic )

Can't light have infinite mass ? 

Point physics and zero point energy?

How many photons can occupy a point ? 

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Radiates by the cause push or pull ? 

Photons are emited by matter and eventually absorbed by matter, reflected or diffused, or refracted. There are other types of interactions at higher energies..

Blackbody radiation depends on temperature of body.

1 hour ago, Complexity said:

Objects in a state of high energy always pass energy to objects in a state of less energy .

Not always, but usually.

There are also rare up conversions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_upconversion

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption

 

1 hour ago, Complexity said:

My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental  foundations . 

It is simply a matter of probability. To upconvert there are needed two or more photons with lower energies to be absorbed in very short window of time, in the right moment.. To downconvert there is needed just one photon and it is spontaneous process.

Throw a dice to get 1 of 6, versus throw two dices to get 1 and 1 in single shot. There is 6 x 6 = 36 combinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Photons are emited by matter and eventually absorbed by matter, reflected or diffused, or refracted. There are other types of interactions at higher energies..

Blackbody radiation depends on temperature of body.

Not always, but usually.

There are also rare up conversions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_upconversion

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption

 

It is simply a matter of probability. To upconvert there are needed two or more photons with lower energies to be absorbed in very short window of time, in the right moment.. To downconvert there is needed just one photon and it is spontaneous process.

Throw a dice to get 1 of 6, versus throw two dices to get 1 and 1 in single shot. There is 6 x 6 = 36 combinations.

The word emitting is a generalized term that is without real explanation of cause . 

Google search:Emitting - produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation).

The answer is a shortfall to my question and upconversion takes a detour away from the question . 

Water flows down a hill because of the force of gravity !  Why can't light flow in a similar manner because of an attractive force ? 

Look at the Sun for example , the Sun itself has more energy than the surrounding space  <E  per small volume measure . 

We know by  thermodynamics that high energy is passive to less energy state objects and/or space .  We also know the ''emitted'' energy of the earlier mentioned lit candle traverses upwards towards the stratosphere where it is <E compared to within the  troposphere per small volume measure .  Again suggesting that the >E is attracted to the <E ?

 

Aren't objects at their most dense volume when they have less internal energy i.e cold ?

 

 

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Complexity said:

You would be the ''adverb'' . 

No.

"You" is a noun. Misusing Words like "adverb" doesn't help.

3 hours ago, Complexity said:

It is a causality answer and not meaningless .  

Plainly wrong because, as it happens, I didn't use force and a knife.

I used a super-power laser.

But I got the same answer.

That's what people here are trying to explain to you.

The answer is the same - regardless of the mechanism.

The density of an apple is a little less than 1 gram per cm3

I can make use of that fact by comparing it to the density of water, and, since the density of water is 1, I can predict that the apple will float.

 

But, because I'm clever enough not to insist on asking "how is the apple divided?", I can make the same prediction without actually dividing the apple at all.

So, when I go apple bobbing, I'm not stuck with a bowl of apple soup.

3 hours ago, Complexity said:

My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental  foundations . 

Yes it is.

Simply because any such force would, by now, have been noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Simply because any such force would, by now, have been noticed.

Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? 

Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to  lights momentum before ? 

 

How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Aren't objects at their most dense volume when they have less internal energy i.e cold ?

Ice is an exception to this rule. Water in solid state has smaller density than in liquid state. Sorry, could not resist..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Complexity said:

Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? 

No.

Since c is a constant it can't change under the influence of a force so it wouldn't tell you if that force was there- that' idea is just silly.

 

2 minutes ago, Complexity said:

How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

By that stupid argument, nobody notices anything new.

 

Probably the best known example is the precession of Mercury.

They noticed it many years before they knew what explanation to look for.

Please stop putting forward stuff that can be destroyed with just a few moments' thought.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Ice is exception from this rule. Water in solid state has smaller density than in liquid state. Sorry, could not resist..

I've a different thought on ice for you .  

What if an iceberg floats because it is has more energy per volume measure than water and is attracted upwards towards the <E of the stratosphere making it seem more buoyant ? 

 

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Since c is a constant it can't change under the influence of a force so it wouldn't tell you if that force was there- that' idea is just silly.

 

 



 

c is only constant in a vacuum ! When light passes through a medium the permeability of the medium provides an opposing force to light and slows light down . 

 

To say c can't change under the influence of force is just silly when we know about medium effects and permeability .  

Quote

a quantity measuring the influence of a substance on the magnetic flux in the region it occupies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Complexity said:

I've a different thought on ice for you .  

What if an iceberg floats because it is has more energy per volume measure than water and is attracted upwards towards the <E of the stratosphere making it seem more buoyant ? 

Bollocks. Anyone can use calorimeter to measure amount of energy required to melt piece of ice..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Complexity said:

Radiates by the cause push or pull ? 

Neither. 

3 hours ago, Complexity said:

If there is no answer any of you can give of why  !  How can you say I am wrong ? 

You have been given answers appropriate to your level of knowledge (which is close to zero). 

More accurate answers would, presumably just confuse you further. 

19 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to  lights momentum before ? 

 

How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

Science is a continual process of finding things that we were not looking for: Neptune, neutrinos, dark energy ...

As you are unwilling/unable to learn (and apparently don’t realise that you need to) you are not going to accept any answers given, preferring your fairy stories. So I shall request this thread is closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Bollocks. Anyone can use calorimeter to measure amount of energy required to melt piece of ice..

Perhaps so ! 

Ice is not really the subject though although I do see the density argument . 

Are you aware of super conductor levitation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Why can't light flow in a similar manner because of an attractive force ? 

Because light does not behave as water. Light needs other models and theories to be explained. 

 

24 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to  lights momentum before ?

There is no need to look at explanations that have been ruled or replaced by better theories. 

I have not read through much of the history of attempts at explaining light and electromagnetism but It is possible that Descarte's and Newton's ideas about "corpuscles" in 17th century would have included the forces you are asking about. But science moved on and this early forerunner to the modern understanding of the photon was replaced. Corpuscles theory didn't explain refraction and interference for instance.

Edited by Ghideon
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neither. 

 

Not pull !

Not push!

You must be suggesting by magic then which is an inappropriate answer to somebody who wants the physics answer . 

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

But science moved on and this early forerunner to the modern understanding of the photon was replaced. Corpuscles theory didn't explain refraction and interference for instance.

This is one of the main problems I've found with science , they seem to have stopped moving on ! 

Isn't understanding and advancing science suppose to be a scientists fundamental goals ? 

I personally hate incomplete answers and to me the explanation that light travels at c with no given physical reason is seriously incomplete physics . 

Refraction and interference are reactions of light when it encounters something , it is not the same thing as light traversing through free space . 

Edited by Complexity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Complexity said:

You must be suggesting by magic then which is an inappropriate answer to somebody who wants the physics answer . 

 

11 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I personally hate incomplete answers and to me the explanation that light travels at c with no given physical reason is seriously incomplete physics . 

Plenty of answers have been given.

Again:

17 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Have to ask: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point? Do you have a reference to something you read about light that raised the question?

There are so many interesting aspects of light that can be understood using various models depending on the level of details required or how deep one wants to go into a certain subject. But it requires some kind of common staring point. Personally I would not have been able to follow the university professor's explanations in the electromagnetic field theory course unless I had understod the math first. In this case, a starting point for invariant speed of light may be Maxwell.
 

11 minutes ago, Complexity said:

This is one of the main problems I've found with science , they seem to have stopped moving on ! 

Problem is you are asking us to move back! Should we revisit Aether and Phlogiston as well?

 

Edited by Ghideon
added quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Complexity said:

You must be suggesting by magic then which is an inappropriate answer to somebody who wants the physics answer . 

I am suggesting you learn instead of making things up. 

You have rejected all the answers you have been given (because they don’t math your fairy tales)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

 

Problem is you are asking us to move back! Should we revisit Aether and Phlogiston as well?

 

Yes you most definite revisit aether but when considering the aether , also consider the semantics and what an aether actually is . 

We on earth are within the earths  electromagnetic field , when we transmit a signal we are effectively transmitting EMR through the electromagnetic field . 

We could consider the earths EMF an aether if we consider semantics differently in relationship to aether . 

 

What is an aether ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I personally hate incomplete answers and to me the explanation that light travels at c with no given physical reason is seriously incomplete physics . 

You have rejected the given physical reasons 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

I am suggesting you learn instead of making things up. 

You have rejected all the answers you have been given (because they don’t math your fairy tales)

I haven't rejected the answers !  I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . 

I asked pull or push !

Was told neither in answer !

Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ? 

 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have rejected the given physical reasons 

No I haven't !  All that you've said is that it is emitted . 

Then when I ask for the physics involved in emissions you tell me there is no force , push or pull .  How can something emit with no push or pull ? 

I suggested there is a force of attraction involved to anything that has <E 

Are you not willing to consider and discuss my suggestion which at least attempts to answer the question ? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Complexity said:

c is only constant in a vacuum !

No.

C is "the speed of light in a vacuum".

And so  C is constant.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . 

But, in the real world, we can see that the answers are right here in this thread.

You are just ignoring reality.

How do we distinguish that from trolling?

51 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Please stop putting forward stuff that can be destroyed with just a few moments' thought.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ? 

Because on the way A-B, why would there ever be a force involved to keep anything moving at constant speed in a straight line? If you have a photon going from a distant galaxy eventually ending up at a telescope on earth, are you suggesting that all along the way there are some force active that guides the photon? There is no such force. The photon does not accelerate. I think all this is already stated in earlier responses. 

Do you have a reason to believe that anything (light or other) needs a "reason" to traverse from A-B at constant speed? The physics is understood an modelled. As for the possible more philosophical meaning of "reason" I have no answer unless you provide some experiment that could be analysed.

 

Note: If you are asking about the process of emitting light at point A, that is not included in the above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Are you not willing to consider and discuss my suggestion which at least attempts to answer the question ? 

If you could present your ideas (in the Speculations forum) with mathematics and evidence then people might consider them. 

But you have already demonstrated you are unable to do that. So why should anyone take your wild unscientific rambling seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.