T
tdubl
Guest
It would have to change otherwise you couldn't have a black hole if gravity didn't increase from the star that formed it. No new mass is brought in from anywhere it's just more dense.
Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
- Thread starter 61Key
- Start date
not true, actually the reason there is a black hole is because the star collapses because the internal pressure is insufficient for it's own gravity. it usually happens when it runs out of fuel.
think of what happens to a hot air balloon when it runs out of fuel. the balloon collaspes. it's called a gravitational collapse(the sun, not the ballon). there's other reasons a star can collapse, but this is the most common. but the gravity of a sun/blackhole never increases, it only decreases
also blackholes are not entire black over 25 years ago hawking showed that a blackhole emits thermal radiation.(actually black body radiation) and actually will disappear from the evaporation of the thermal radiation.
and due to the conservation law of energy (energy cannot be created or destroy and can only change forms.) a star/blackhole will eventually disappear. everything that puts out energy must get it from somewhere, and if energy is leaving the sun (thru light, heat, and many other ways including thermal radiation) it will eventually run out. and the sun/blackhole actually will loose gravity over time. and it will eventually disappear altogether
think of what happens to a hot air balloon when it runs out of fuel. the balloon collaspes. it's called a gravitational collapse(the sun, not the ballon). there's other reasons a star can collapse, but this is the most common. but the gravity of a sun/blackhole never increases, it only decreases
also blackholes are not entire black over 25 years ago hawking showed that a blackhole emits thermal radiation.(actually black body radiation) and actually will disappear from the evaporation of the thermal radiation.
and due to the conservation law of energy (energy cannot be created or destroy and can only change forms.) a star/blackhole will eventually disappear. everything that puts out energy must get it from somewhere, and if energy is leaving the sun (thru light, heat, and many other ways including thermal radiation) it will eventually run out. and the sun/blackhole actually will loose gravity over time. and it will eventually disappear altogether
Last edited:
Wha Chu Mean
New member
LOL,
I'm playing devil's advocate here... catch on.
Secondly, I never agreed with the video, nor disagreed that subduction does occur.
I said he had an interesting "concept".
To say the earth doesn't expand and contract is the most "asinine" thing I think I have ever heard... well read (the universe is not static).
Everything expands and contracts or would you like to re-write the current laws of physics?
Here maybe a MIT prof will make this concept more believable to you than I
http://academicearth.org/lectures/heat-conductivity-and-thermal-expansion
1/3 of the earth is comprised of molten materials.
I didn't say the earth expanded 2 fold or even half original size.
However; it does strike a curiosity in me as to what the effects are.
Run a simulation through an F.E.A. algorithm and get back to me.
You will see exactly what I am getting at.
The sun supplies 3.8 x 10^26 watts of power
E=MC^2 right... so theoretically the sun (and other cosmic ray contributors) could be supplying the universe & earth for that "matter" (I know funny word play right) with mass.
The process of light converting into mass is called transmutation (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1948/press.html )
However the more pressing topic (no theoretical) lets go into radiant energy
"The luminosity of radiant energy is 4 x 10^33 ergs/sec. Since 1 gram is worth 9 x 10^20 ergs, sunlight equals 4 x 10^12 grams/second or 4.4 million metric tons of equivalent mass per second .This is radiated over a sphere equal to the radius of the earths orbit 147 million kilometers in radius or 2.7 x 10^27 square centimeters. The Earth's cross section is 1.3 x 10^18 square centimeters, so the ratio of the total mass per second, to that intercepted by the earth is 1.9 kilograms/sec. During the entire life of the sun...4.5 billion years, the earth has gained 2.7 x 10^17 kilograms, which is only 1/21 millionth of its mass. The problem is that the earth is in thermal equilibrium with the sun at this distance, which means that whatever energy or mass-equivalent it gains, it also looses by re-radiating this energy in the infrared spectrum. So, the net gain is only a small fraction of what it receives given that it is not a perfect black body. "
source: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11325.html
That's just the mass!
Now lets talk matter!
"Is Earth gaining weight? At the present rate, Earth gains about 40,000 metric tons each year from space debris that bombard our planet. Yet it loses an amount so small (atmospheric gases, etc.) as to not really warrant any serious consideration. So, will Earth's weight gain have an impact on its orbit, relative mass (gravitational pull) or any other properties? Although 40,000 metric tons a year sounds like a huge gain, when you compare it to the immense size of Earth, it dwindles to a meager 0.000003 of one percent of the Earth's mass. The impact is insignificant."
source: http://ecology.com/features/earthataglance/youarehere.html
Found an actual experiment
http://www.nsls.bnl.gov/newsroom/science/2007/10-Chen.htm
Concerning "thermal expansion" and how scientist under estimate contributing factors ---->
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.php
So here is the science to back up the claim that the earth has indeed grown!
Maybe not in gigantic proportions but, none the less has gained mass!
There are other parts of atomic properties that I don't want to get into but I think my point has been illustrated.
Hence I will say again we don't know what we don't know!!!!
C'mon son... really?
Heat can be destroyed and created i.e. it is a form of energy!!!!
The process is called transference!
Energy is what can't be destroyed according to the laws that we (I use that term loosely) understand.
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch5/heat.html
I take it you didn't have Thermodynamics as one of your courses?
A freshman... and in high school to boot, now that is ostentatious.
V
Voss25
Guest
I understand that you're playing devil's advocate, but I never said things don't expand or shrink. They clearly do.
I only refuted Neil Adams' growing Earth hypothesis.
I don't disagree with anything you said there, but none of that proves the growing Earth hypothesis.
Also, the Earth is not 1/3 molten. It's NEARLY 100% molten. The crust doesn't even account for 1% of the entire mass of the Earth.
Listen, there are logistical errors in his concept. It only makes for interesting sci fi, which he happens to be very good at. He should leave the science to people who understand it.
I only refuted Neil Adams' growing Earth hypothesis.
I don't disagree with anything you said there, but none of that proves the growing Earth hypothesis.
Also, the Earth is not 1/3 molten. It's NEARLY 100% molten. The crust doesn't even account for 1% of the entire mass of the Earth.
Listen, there are logistical errors in his concept. It only makes for interesting sci fi, which he happens to be very good at. He should leave the science to people who understand it.
Wha Chu Mean
New member
Okay point taken.
Maybe not his hypothesis... but the earth is growing lol.
The 1/3 molten comment was referring to the core inner & outter.
V
Voss25
Guest
Oh sorry, my bad...that was a brain fart. Yeah, the inner core is thought to be solid. Still, it's not really that big. It's smaller than the moon actually.
Still, tho, about the Earth growing...it def receives matter and energy from space, but it's also a cooling planet which is releasing trapped energy from beneath the core. As you know, objects shrink as they cool. I don't have time right now to look at the numbers, but it'd be interesting to compare the gain/loss and see what is actually going on.
I'm sure it'd be a very small net gain/loss relative to the Earth's mass, but it's still interesting to look at.
Still, tho, about the Earth growing...it def receives matter and energy from space, but it's also a cooling planet which is releasing trapped energy from beneath the core. As you know, objects shrink as they cool. I don't have time right now to look at the numbers, but it'd be interesting to compare the gain/loss and see what is actually going on.
I'm sure it'd be a very small net gain/loss relative to the Earth's mass, but it's still interesting to look at.
T
tdubl
Guest
I'm with you on all of that. My post was in response to surface gravity. I've been out of practice for awhile but the gravitational pull should be significantly higher after collapse to a black hole, otherwise we would be able to see it. I know stars don't technically have a surface but gravitational pull should be a lot more on the surface after it collapses to a black hole because of the relative distance from the center of the mass. I also remember some theorem stating someting like being able to reach one point from any other point on earth going through the planet in 40 something odd minutes. In order for that to be true gravitational pull would have to vary in relation to the surface distance from the center mass. Maybe my logic is flawed but, it's seems to me it would have to be that way. Like I said I haven't cracked a physics book in a long time and it's pretty dangerous when you only remember parts of stuff.