Jump to content

Hijack from What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

you don't seem to have reflected on much during your vacation.
Why not stick to what you know, and try to learn some science from the many people here who are knowledgeable in it ?

If you wish to discuss the history og Grumman's Bethpage ( Long Island ) facility, its many Navy fighters, its lunar lander program, many unbuilt projects, and collaboration with Northrop, I would be more than glad to engage in conversation.
As for science, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.

So you are saying that mass is not just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time? If mass is what I just described, mass compared to volume does not define current density. Mass is the density of said substance at room temperature at sea level on earth. You cannot calculate current density without knowing current temperature information, ambient pressure, and ambient radiation effects.  I see that as a formula that does not balance out. If I am incorrect, perhaps you can enlighten me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How many more times ??? You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane

Antimony density as a solid: 6.697 g/cm^3.   As a liquid: 6.53 g/cm^3.  Another way of expressing this is that 1g would have a volume of  0.15314 cc as a liquid, and 0.149320 cc as a solid. Since

There used to be a lot of information about Antimony and how it expanded upon cooling right near the melting point. It does some wild color change too. Today on the net, I cannot find much. But regard

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

So you are saying that mass is not just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time?

One of the many problems is that you are equating mass and volume, which means that YOU are saying that Volume is "just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass ( inertial ) is that property of a system, that resists changes in inertia, of that system. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is the definition of mass as I know it.
If you should need an explanation, be sure to ask.

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

One of the many problems is that you are equating mass and volume, which means that YOU are saying that Volume is "just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time

No, I was pretty clear about that. I claimed that the "physics" definition for the word mass is specific-gravity and contains all the above-mentioned information. Specific gravity sets the inertia value for that substance. Once set, those criteria are the "mass" according to "physics," not me. As you move out away from earth, you take only inertia value with you; as you heat it or cool it or expose it to rays or vibration, the Density will change. Gravity, if any, exists will affect it differently, so all that is left is the inertia it will create no matter how large or small it becomes due to expansion or contraction. So although specific gravity is Density according to "physics," and you can figure out how much a volume of the substance will weigh on earth at sea level, it leaves out any effects of heat, light, UV, X-rays, vibration, or cooling. So Density does not equal mass/volume; that equation is not even possible in "physics." Yet, haha.  According to physics, Density is specific gravity, so mass is the ill-thought-out word for specific gravity, according to physics. 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Mass ( inertial ) is that property of a system, that resists changes in inertia, of that system. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is the definition of mass as I know it.
If you should need an explanation, be sure to ask.

And that sounds like something important and new perhaps, maybe something to learn? It is only the inertia a certain amount of a substance with a specific gravity on earth at sea level will create there and anywhere in the universe. It has nothing to do with density other than on earth at sea level at room temperature while not being exposed to rays, heat, UV, X-rays, vibration or extreme gravity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that gibberish is inconsequential to the property of mass.

Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, MigL said:

All of that gibberish is inconsequential to the property of mass.

Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

You are the one that said "Density = mass/volume." That is not a legit formula. I am explaining why. It is the same thing as saying, "Density = specific gravity/volume." It does not make sense mathematically. If you can extrapolate on your presented formula and understanding I would love that. Density of a substance measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe. Specific gravity measured on earth at sea level equals the mass exhibited by that substance anywhere in the universe.  

 

Edited by Bill McC
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

You are the one that said "Density = mass/volume." That is not a legit formula.

OMG. Please go away. 
 

image.thumb.png.058ff45f29438906188224bfa27cdd91.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Specific gravity is otherwise known as relative density.
It is usually a ratio compared to the density of water, and as such, it is a unit-less number.
Do  a dimensional analisys and see which of us doesn't make sense mathematically.

Stick to what you know; ask about what you don't.

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

Specific gravity is otherwise known as relative density.
It is usually a ratio compared to the density of water, and as such, it is a unit-less number.
Do  a dimensional analisys and see which of us doesn't make sense mathematically.

Stick to what you know; ask about what you don't.

If you are going to use your formula you would have to use specific gravity or density which creates the same results for density, for similar elements and substances. That would be the value you would use to create the baseline inertia value. You could reverse engineer using that information to come up with the theoretical volume of a known substance that displayed a certain inertia to form a volume based on specific gravity or density on earth. So if a meteorite slammed into earth you could extrapolate how much inertia it previously had before impact and and use volume measurements obtained through whatever means, of the asteroid, and then figure out what most of the meteorite was made of, and then determine how much heat, cold, rays, vibration played in the actual density of the meteorite. But that is way out there and I would not give a quarter for the result.

 

If it was me and I knew what the object was approximately made of and its approximate volume I would state that, I would describe its surroundings, ambient radiations and temperature and velocity relevant to some object, that would be all I would need for anything I wanted to know about it. When you throw in inertia you are on shaky ground. Especially if you were educated with Pre World War science. Particle count would make more sense than the word mass. And there is debate about the size of atoms at room temperature now anyway. 

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

One of the many problems is that you are equating mass and volume, which means that YOU are saying that Volume is "just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time

In relating to mass, yes, mass, according to “Physics,” is only the inertia created by an object of specific Volume and Density at sea level and tested for resistance to inertia. Those tests are tests of specific gravity, which is a test of Density. When we find that substance elsewhere, it may be in a different volume, different Density. Still, we can extrapolate based upon a comparison of inertia how much of the substance there is, based on the inertia tests done on the sample at sea level. So if you wanted to use a formula, it would be the Density of a known object being examined equals Volume of the mass at sea level with equal inertia over current Volume. The object cannot be unknown, or else we could not tell what inertia the substance would have back on earth to compare the inertia to at the present location. The formula would be Density equals Volume of a known substance in the known state back on earth at sea level matching inertia of object measured over the Volume of the current object. And again, those results would not get my quarter. It all seems out of order to me. I would probably know the temperature of the object before I started the crazy variable-filled comparison to see what temperature it is doing to its volume. 

All of this is physics whacked method of relaying simplicities not mine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bill McC said:

You are the one that said "Density = mass/volume." That is not a legit formula. I am explaining why. It is the same thing as saying, "Density = specific gravity/volume." It does not make sense mathematically.

It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One makes sense mathematically, and the other does not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill McC said:

You could reverse engineer using that information to come up with the theoretical volume of a known substance

What makes you think that knowledge would be understandable?

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

It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One makes sense mathematically, and the other does not.

 

I understand the twisted jest of it, but the formula only compares one volume to another if it is to work. It has to, or it is not math and science. Inertia identifies the volume of a known substance in an object as it would be on earth and relates it to that volume as it would be on earth at sea level at room temperature. At that point, we can make a comparison of the volume of the object as it would be on earth to its current volume to determine current density. You are not comparing inertia to volume. You are not even comparing weight on earth to the volume; you are comparing volume to volume to obtain density. You have to. 

That formula "Density equals mass/volume" is disgusting, in my opinion, and does not fit any mathematical format of which I am aware. Unless you are saying that inertia means volume, then that formula flies. If you tell me that the convention is to call mass (volume on earth), I am ok with that, at least as far as math goes, but linguistically it would just be another physics butcher job of English. 

If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. 

 

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think that knowledge would be understandable?

Knowledge is understanding something. 

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

If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. 

It is so far from reality that, to echo Pauli, it is not even wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

Knowledge is understanding something. 

That's the curse, of understanding nothing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic question @Bill McC: You seem to claim that mass equals volume. If mass equals volume then a 4 liter tank has the same mass when empty as when it is filled with water, since volume is 4 liters in both cases. Does that match what we observe around us? 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

 If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. 

I think pretty much everything is wrong in what you said in that post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

If there is something wrong with what I am saying I would love to know. 

How many more times ???
You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane subject, or double down on your previous claims.
What is the point of letting you know what is wrong with what you are saying ?
You only chose to ignore it.
That is not discussion.
That is an obstinate old fool, who believes he knows more than he actually does.

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

Basic question @Bill McC: You seem to claim that mass equals volume. If mass equals volume then a 4 liter tank has the same mass when empty as when it is filled with water, since volume is 4 liters in both cases. Does that match what we observe around us? 

I am saying that if you have an object and you want to know what its density is at the present moment by measuring its mass its inertia, you need to know what volume of that substance on earth will create an equal inertia at sea level, then you can compare that volume over the objects current volume and determine its density. That formula of Density equals mass/volume is missing some steps or assumes a value that mass alone even to physicists does not mean. Because the formula only works for density if you are comparing the substance the object is made of and its earthly volume at sea lever at room temperature, compared to the objects current volume which will give you its current density. 

So perhaps the formula should be Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass, over volume. If it were written Density = standard volume of known substance at standard density determined by mass,/volume, it might get confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

it might get confused

Too late !

By the way, mass and inertia are not the same thing either.
Mass is resistance to inertia change.

So now you've stated that mass, volume and inertia are equivalent.
Can you get more confused ?

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

How many more times ???
You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane subject, or double down on your previous claims.
What is the point of letting you know what is wrong with what you are saying ?
You only chose to ignore it.
That is not discussion.
That is an obstinate old fool, who believes he knows more than he actually does.

You posted Density = mass/volume. If mass is the particle count the actual number of atoms of some substance in an object, comparing that to its current volume that has the same particle count would be futile. So if it is explainable have at it. You keep quoting what seems like a rather incorrect formula in anyones sphere of understanding. I am suggesting that it could work if you modify it and it should be easily understood. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see that density and specific gravity are different concepts that are sometimes inappropriately substituted for each other.
Often this substitution is unimportant, sometimes it matters.

But what I can't see is why either were originally introduced into a thread about global warming.

Further there is a difference between the density of an object and the density of a substance,
and also between the specific gravity of an object and the S.G. of a substance.

Then there is the problem of mass.

It is not necessary to measure mechanical inertia to measure mass. (or density or S.G.)

Nor is it necessary to measure mass to measure  S.G.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Too late !

By the way, mass and inertia are not the same thing either.
Mass is resistance to inertia change.

So now you've stated that mass, volume and inertia are equivalent.
Can you get more confused ?

I am not confused at all, I know that you need a volume to compare to a volume to get density. The mass in the formula Density = mass/volume would only compare the number of atoms in that object over the current volume which with will yield nothing. Until you figure out the matching volume of the substance on earth at sea level at room temperature that that resists inertia equally to the object having the formula applied. From that volume of substance at sea level at room temperature you can determine by dividing by the current volume of the object where ever it is, what the density of the object is currently. 

So I am not the one claiming mass is equal to volume in “Physics” I am claiming in order for your formula to work mass must mean volume or is implying it means volume. Or else it is not a legit mathematical formula. I am saying you are implying that mass is volume with that formula. Which is fine if you go by the definition of mass that means volume. But you angrily tell me mass is resistance to inertia witch is not a volume in itself. You have to go outside the box, outside of the formula to relate inertia to a volume that you can compare and determine present density I am not repeating and I have gotten not one ounce of information that makes my conclusion void or invalid. I have gotten references to World War Two, but no sound mathematical information to make me move on. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I am saying that if you have an object and you want to know what its density is at the present moment by measuring its mass its inertia, you need to know what volume of that substance on earth will create an equal inertia at sea level, then you can compare that volume over the objects current volume and determine its density.

I can find the mass of something using a balance, and volume doesn't enter into the process.

If it's more dense than water, I can find the volume by how much water it displaces, which doesn't directly depend on the mass.

The ratio of those two values gives me the density, because density is define as that ratio.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I am not confused at all, I know that you need a volume to compare to a volume to get density.

If by this you mean you need to have a volume as a standard, yes, that's true. It's true of all measurement; it's not like volume is unique in this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

but no sound mathematical information to make me move on. 

Could that be because you are not replying to my post ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, studiot said:

I can see that density and specific gravity are different concepts that are sometimes inappropriately substituted for each other.
Often this substitution is unimportant, sometimes it matters.

But what I can't see is why either were originally introduced into a thread about global warming.

Further there is a difference between the density of an object and the density of a substance,
and also between the specific gravity of an object and the S.G. of a substance.

Then there is the problem of mass.

It is not necessary to measure mechanical inertia to measure mass. (or density or S.G.)

Nor is it necessary to measure mass to measure  S.G.

If water did not deviate from a straight or curved graph line of volume to temperature, the water at the poles would freeze solid to the bottom of the ocean. If water did not upon cooling below 38-40 degrees Fahrenheit, become less dense and float on the 38-40 degree water, to break all expansion to temperature rules of all other liquids currently known, the cold water would sink to the bottom of the ocean and freeze the ocean solid. It would not thaw during the summer, and ice caps would reach New York. Water is quite the substance. 

That is why we must keep the oceans free of pollutants that would destroy the water's remarkable ability to do this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.