Water on Moon ? ... never

[darkbeaver]

The fact that neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations for gravity or any solutions derived from them take any account of the temperature, yet they give results fully in accord with observations and experiments, within the limits of their applicability and our ability to measure things. In other words, temperature and gravity are completely unrelated, and it doesn't matter what the Quran or your favourite interpreter of it say to the contrary, that's not the standard of what's scientifically correct, and they are simply wrong. Theoretically, observationally, experimentally, in every possible way, they are provably wrong. But I doubt you'd understand the proof.

Nothing in the universe can ever be unrelated to gravity/plasma, thus temperature certainly is related to gravity. You are unrelated with reality.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Nothing in the universe can ever be unrelated to gravity/plasma, thus temperature certainly is related to gravity. You are unrelated with reality.

Show me the relationship.

 

[darkbeaver]

Show me the relationship.

The idea that any force in the universe is unrelated to temperature is preposterous and requires no explanation.

I will nevertheless present one tomorrow at the same approximate time. It,s very late , I have to catch a bus.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The idea that any force in the universe is unrelated to temperature is preposterous and requires no explanation.

I will nevertheless present one tomorrow at the same approximate time. It,s very late , I have to catch a bus.

... and it's cold ..

 

[DaSleeper]

Show me the relationship.

If a plane gets more "lift" in the winter time because cold air is denser ......maybe that is one reason some people would think that temperature affects gravity to some degree, or at least the effect of gravity, which is weight.....non?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The idea that any force in the universe is unrelated to temperature is preposterous and requires no explanation.

I will nevertheless present one tomorrow at the same approximate time. It,s very late , I have to catch a bus.

I look forward to it. You'll have to delve into General Relativity, adding heat also adds very tiny amounts of mass, as per Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation, to make any kind of connection, but it requires Big Bang type conditions to make any detectable difference. In the real observable world today there's no detectable connection. Heating up all the planets to the temperature of the sun would not alter their orbital parameters, unless of course the process blew them up so their mass got scattered around, but that's a different situation entirely. Since you don't believe in either GRT or the Big Bang, you're pretty much hooped. No scientist worthy of the name would say something "requires no explanation" though. Science is in the business of finding explanations, and a claim like that certainly requires one.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If a plane gets more "lift" in the winter time because cold air is denser ......maybe that is one reason some people would think that temperature affects gravity to some degree, or at least the effect of gravity, which is weight.....non?

Oui. Lift is directly related to the air density, which varies by close to a factor of two over the range of temperatures and altitudes an aircraft might conceivably be taking off in.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Well, it is interesting that gravity presumably exists at absolute zero went absolute zero is the total absence of energy ... (presumably electromagnetic energy).

So, if that's true, what the hell IS gravity?

... and no, it is not an unrelated phenomenon to electromagnetism.

 

[DaSleeper]

Many years ago, in science class, I learned that gravity is simply the natural attraction between two objects.
The amount of gravity or attraction is dependent on the mass and distance of both objects.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Many years ago, in science class, I learned that gravity is simply the natural attraction between two objects.
The amount of gravity or attraction is dependent on the mass of both objects.

Not energy, then? It is a wave, you know.

 

[DaSleeper]

Not energy, then? It is a wave, you know.

I remember asking the teacher if there was a point between the earth and the moon where the attraction of the moon and the sun would cancel each other and an object would stay fixed in space.
She told me that at some point the sun would interfere with that zero gravity.....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I remember asking the teacher if there was a point between the earth and the moon where the attraction of the moon and the sun would cancel each other and an object would stay fixed in space.
She told me that at some point the sun would interfere with that zero gravity.....

Not in a three (or more) body system there isn't, but in a two body system there are five such locations, called Lagrange points or libration points, where something small relative to the two orbiting bodies would be stable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, it is interesting that gravity presumably exists at absolute zero went absolute zero is the total absence of energy ... (presumably electromagnetic energy).

So, if that's true, what the hell IS gravity?

It's not true, absolute zero is just the temperature at which no further heat can be extracted from a system. Or to put it another way, it's the temperature at which the motions of the elementary particles everything's made of are at their absolute minimum. It doesn't mean there's no energy at all, just that you can't extract it and use it for anything. All sorts of strange quantum effects start happening as a system approaches absolute zero (though it'll never quite get there), but gravity and charge don't disappear.

As to what gravity IS, operationally it's just the observed attraction between masses. Classical physics views it as a vector field, general relativity views it as a change in the shape of spacetime, and the quantum theorists haven't figured out yet what they think it is, there's no workable quantum theory of gravity. But in the sense I think you mean the question, the real answer is that nobody knows. It's just there, a feature of the reality we live in. We have a couple of very useful and accurate ways to describe and analyze it, within very broad limits, but that's all we know about it.

 

[petros]

I look forward to it. You'll have to delve into General Relativity, adding heat also adds very tiny amounts of mass, as per Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation, to make any kind of connection, but it requires Big Bang type conditions to make any detectable difference. In the real observable world today there's no detectable connection. Heating up all the planets to the temperature of the sun would not alter their orbital parameters, unless of course the process blew them up so their mass got scattered around, but that's a different situation entirely. Since you don't believe in either GRT or the Big Bang, you're pretty much hooped. No scientist worthy of the name would say something "requires no explanation" though. Science is in the business of finding explanations, and a claim like that certainly requires one.

The eager Beaver is right. There are now 6 potential states of matter and temperature doesn't change its state.

Scientists reported in April 2016 they had created a bizarre state of matter, one that had been predicted to exist but never seen in real life. Though this type of matter could be held in one's hand as if it were a solid, a zoom-in on the material would reveal the disorderly interactions of its electrons, more characteristic of a liquid. In the new matter, called a Kitaev quantum spin liquid, the electrons enter into a sort of quantum dance in which they interact or "talk" to one another. Usually when matter cools down the spin of its electrons tends to line up. But in this quantum spin liquid, the electrons interact so that they affect how the others are spinning and never align no matter how cool the material gets. The material would behave as if its electrons, considered indivisible, had broken apart, the researchers reported April 4, 2016, in the journal Nature Materials.

 

[MHz]

Show me the relationship.

Gravity of any object is specific to that object alone, basically when it quits getting smaller due to gravity that determines what material it is. If it cooled off more it would shrink and that would increase the gravity at the surface, if it warmed up it would expand, defeating existing gravity as the gravity is less at the surface the more the objects expands due to temp increases.

... and it's cold ..

Not as cold as when the mass is spread out so far it can't even create 1 sun.

Oui. Lift is directly related to the air density, which varies by close to a factor of two over the range of temperatures and altitudes an aircraft might conceivably be taking off in.

Engines also produce more HP with cold air so that would help 'performance'.

Well, it is interesting that gravity presumably exists at absolute zero went absolute zero is the total absence of energy ... (presumably electromagnetic energy).

So, if that's true, what the hell IS gravity?

... and no, it is not an unrelated phenomenon to electromagnetism.

Gravity holds solar systems and galaxies together, supposedly, the cold of deep space is present in both cases. Do 2 galaxies act differently if they have many bight star or just a few? If they do they are acting as a single body of mass.

I remember asking the teacher if there was a point between the earth and the moon where the attraction of the moon and the sun would cancel each other and an object would stay fixed in space.
She told me that at some point the sun would interfere with that zero gravity.....

As long as they are lined up there will be a point between the two that is gravity neutral, it will change depending which body the sun is behind.

 

[MHz]

You'll have to delve into General Relativity, adding heat also adds very tiny amounts of mass, as per Einstein's mass-energy equivalence relation, to make any kind of connection, but it requires Big Bang type conditions to make any detectable difference.

Are you saying an objects heavier and them loses that weight rather than the same mass increases in volume as it gets warmer and loses volume as it gets colder.
A single object that has any rotation cannot implode as the mass is greater around the middle than the top or bottom. Those are weak spots. As such do sun ban implode to become a 'black hole', two objects not merging nicely is a better explanation for the big bang

In the real observable world today there's no detectable connection. Heating up all the planets to the temperature of the sun would not alter their orbital parameters,

How about the planets and their moons being that hot, does heat tend to push them away while cold draws them closer together?

unless of course the process blew them up so their mass got scattered around, but that's a different situation entirely.

The sun will expand without blowing up, when it starts imploding is when the explosion takes place, perhaps it is the cold meeting something hot that messes things up.

Since you don't believe in either GRT or the Big Bang, you're pretty much hooped. No scientist worthy of the name would say something "requires no explanation" though.

Do you take the 'Big Bang Theory' as a worthy scientific explanation?? The mass needed was just 'poofed into existence'??

Science is in the business of finding explanations, and a claim like that certainly requires one.

It is a business for profit rather than non-profit and facts based knowledge.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The eager Beaver is right. There are now 6 potential states of matter and temperature doesn't change its state.

Scientists reported in April 2016 they had created a bizarre state of matter...

Very interesting discovery, but I don't see that it supports any of the Beave's claims. That's clearly a quantum effect, and the electric cosmos model he favours denies quantum theory, basically doesn't accept any physics later than the 19th century.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Gravity of any object is specific to that object alone, basically when it quits getting smaller due to gravity that determines what material it is. If it cooled off more it would shrink and that would increase the gravity at the surface, if it warmed up it would expand, defeating existing gravity as the gravity is less at the surface the more the objects expands due to temp increases.

Yes, but that's not temperature affecting gravity, it's temperature affecting the size of the object, and thus the distance from its surface to its centre.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Are you saying an objects heavier and them loses that weight rather than the same mass increases in volume as it gets warmer and loses volume as it gets colder.

I don't think so, though I'm really not sure what you're asking, you seem to be conflating mass and volume. I'm saying energy and mass are equivalent.

A single object that has any rotation cannot implode as the mass is greater around the middle than the top or bottom.

A hot gaseous body like a star exists in a state of balance between gravity trying to shrink it down and radiation pressure trying to expand it. When it runs out of fuel and the radiation pressure drops it'll certainly implode, and depending on its mass it'll do something like shrink down to a white dwarf or rebound into a nova or supernova.

How about the planets and their moons being that hot, does heat tend to push them away while cold draws them closer together?

No, there'll be no effect at all.

The sun will expand without blowing up, when it starts imploding is when the explosion takes place, perhaps it is the cold meeting something hot that messes things up.

The sun's too small to explode. According to current understanding it'll go through a red giant phase as the nuclear processes at its core use up the hydrogen and it shifts to fusing other things, when that's all done it'll shrink down a white dwarf and gradually cool into a cinder.

Do you take the 'Big Bang Theory' as a worthy scientific explanation??

It's the best explanation we have so far, a lot of people way smarter than I am have worked it out and convinced a lot of other people way smarter than I am, so yes I do think it's worth taking seriously.

 

[MHz]

The apparent weigh changes or it doesn't.


https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/seven-states-matter-explained
Solid, liquid and gas – these are the physical states most people know. The lesser-known state plasma consists of highly charged particles with extremely high kinetic energy.
But then there's ...
Bose-Einstein condensate: a state of matter that occurs very close to absolute zero. At this extremely low temperature, molecular motion almost stops and atoms begin to clump together.
Quark-gluon plasma: the state of matter with the highest energy level. It is basically the building blocks of matter existing in a soup resembling conditions just after the Universe was created.
Degenerate matter: the highly compressed state of matter which often exists in the cores of massive stars. The core's gas is super compressed and the primary source of pressure is no longer thermal, but quantum.



Looks like nothing but playing with words to make something simple more complex to justify the money science gets and so little truth comes out.


A object becomes a solid when it gets cold but it is no longer a solid after it gets to a temp that is only found in deep space. Got some of that material handy? I'm thinking not.


An object is no longer a gas after it gets hotter than when it became a gas??


Matter is no longer matter once it is compressed past a certain point??


You can make comments about space but all of you refuse to answer the Mars chute opening question. I'm sure that shows the ones here imagine things more than they are fact based conclusions. I assume the landing animation will be as flawless as the other 2 were.