Ask any question you want about Physics

a primary and perhaps the primary reason the core has not frozen is under the pressure and temperature there unique compounds of thorium and uranium can form and they produce tremendous heat. also because the core has two layers one in the center is actually more or less solid and it rotates different than the outer layer all of this creates a dynamic environment which produces heat and keeps the outer core circulating and contributes to dynamism.

Is thorium a fossile fuel, and is it a better nuclear power source?

originally posted by: KrzYma


you can't quantize geometry, also electric and magnetic fields are not quantized as well!
The frequencies in EM radiations are, as a consequence of emitters, but not the fields themselves !

No I'm not saying we want to quantize the geometrical version of gravity. I'm saying what we have now with GR is a version of gravity that is explained as the geometry of space-time.
What we are now trying to figure out is if gravity can be quantized in the same way all other physics is quantized.
All that means is does gravity consist of individual "quanta"? There is even a name for individual pieces of gravity or particles of gravity - gravitons. They are hypothetical right now.

There was a time when we thought electromagnetism was just a wave and then Einstein discovered light comes in individual packets or quanta, and as we figured out the rules these quanta obeyed that was the beginning of quantum mechanics. So yes EM is quantized, it's in the name, that's why it's called Quantum Physics.

So gravitons would also be quantum particles of gravity and would obey quantum rules. That would be called "quantizing gravity". Just like photons are quanta of light.

Even quantum field theory has basic quanta of each field, so therefore it's quantized.

Plank's units are not the smallest possible, it just makes no sense for us to calculate smaller values, this has nothing to do with any "pieces" in the infinity of distances.

math is the reason for "pieces" or quanta, like 1, 2, 3...
but a distance from mathematical 1 to 2 is "infinite big"
We can however only stay in a range and that's the only reason someone invented what we are told today.

Well the Planck distance is pretty much the limit for our physics. At that scale the quantum effects that cause wave/particles to have a built in uncertainty in position and momentum begins to effect space-time itself.
So it doesn't make sense to try to talk about a smaller space.

I'm not sure what else you're trying to say there?

originally posted by: dragonridr

I'm going to say your both wrong you two forgot to include the moon in your duscussions the reason you see the sharp decline is earth's center mass is about 2000 km under us. There is no point in the earth with zero gravity. There will always be pull towards the moon in any location. Let's find out ok

Mass of the Earth is 6.00*10^24 kg.
Mass of the is 7.35*10^22 kg
And they are 3.80*105 km apart roughly.
So let's figure for earth's center mass using our starting point as earth's center.

ecm = ((0*6.00*10^24) + (3.80*108 * 7.35*10^22)) m / (6.00*10^24 + 7.35*10^22)= 4598666m = 4600 km.

Ok so from the center of earth the center mass is 4600 km the radius of the earth is 6,371 kilometers again roughly. Subtract 4600 km from 6371km we get earth's center mass as being 1771 km below us and no where near the center of the earth. Also means the chart he posted would be wrong. Because everything would pull towards that point meaning there would be. Multiple different answers depending on location of the moon.

So back to the original question if there was a hollow area and you were there there greater mass would be pulling you up and the mass below you pulling you down decreases. So in the center I would suspect if we ran a computer simulation we would find you make circles lagging behind the moon. How ever as was pointed out do to heat and pressure this scenario is impossible.

The sun would also have an effect on increasing and decreasing the pull depending on how they line up.

originally posted by: Hyperia
Is thorium a fossile fuel, and is it a better nuclear power source?

fossil fuels are fuels that are believed to be organic in origin. I.e; dead plants and animals under geological processes form fossil fuels such as coal oil and natural gas. Thorium's origins are not organic; it is an element and therefore it cannot be a fossil fuel.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
a primary and perhaps the primary reason the core has not frozen is under the pressure and temperature there unique compounds of thorium and uranium can form and they produce tremendous heat.

Yes, maybe potassium too, the same radioactive kind found in bananas except in the pressure of the Earth's core it can form an alloy with iron:

phys.org...

the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."

originally posted by: Hyperia
Is thorium a fossile fuel, and is it a better nuclear power source?

If you mean fissile, not exactly. It won't sustain fission by itself, but in combination with other materials it can be used as "fertile fuel material". According to this, more research is needed:

"The Use of Thorium as Nuclear Fuel"

To date thorium utilization has been demonstrated in light water reactors, as well as in other reactor types including fast spectrum reactors, heavy water reactors, and gas-cooled reactors. In this context, the database and experience with thorium fuel and fuel cycles are very limited and must be augmented significantly before large-scale investment is committed to commercialization.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never said it explained anything. I was trying to see if that was part of what KrzYma was trying to describe concerning the 1m and 1cm wavelengths ultimately containing the same energy.

If you want to explore models that don't explain anything, or don't match observation, this is a great one. I can't think of a single observation or experimental result that matches this model:



I suppose it has some entertainment value for the absurdity (I laughed out loud when I saw this), but otherwise I'm not sure why we want to pursue models that don't match observation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could you tell it to me like a child, it works? As a nuclear reactor in a city format?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh that video is great I couldn't stop laughing. Especially since he thinks pressure is going to hold us the the surface of the earth. This model looks awfully familiar. He took the old theory of crystal rings surrounding the earth and flipped it in the other direction. All I know is wouldn't want to go into the space station on his world the results would be instant death.

By itself no,You can make a liquid fuel that can sustain a reaction you take thorium add chloride or fluoride. There called thorium molten salt reactors. They have a couple of advantages over solid fuel reactors you can't have a melt down for example. Can use it to dispose of nuclear waste is another. And I guess as far as building them in other countries it removes the possibility of them making a bomb.

QUESTION about gravitational potential and kinetic energy.

scenario 1:
2 masses A and B where A is 100000 x B

In the theory, if A moves away from B it gains potential energy, right ??

A---B < -- low KE

A--------------------B < -- higher KE

what about a system with 3 masses, A, B and C
A is 100000 X B and C=A

A----------B-----------C

what KE now for B ???

I hope you see that this theory works for 2 body systems only,
OR... maybe a mass "knows" what kinetic energy it has to have in relation to other surrounding bodies ?

what is ENERGY other than a word , does it exist or is it just a concept ?

Question:

What is a micro black hole and where does it go?

originally posted by: KrzYma

You didn't comment on the model in the video I posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It claims mainstream science is wrong, so I thought you might like it.

QUESTION about gravitational potential and kinetic energy.

scenario 1:
2 masses A and B where A is 100000 x B

In the theory, if A moves away from B it gains potential energy, right ??

A---B < -- low KE

A--------------------B < -- higher KE

That's backwards. It would look like this:

A--------------------B -- high Potential energy, low kinetic energy

A < -- B < -- lower potential energy, higher kinetic energy

Like this:

On the left the kinetic energy is zero but there is potential energy. On the right the potential energy from the left has been converted to kinetic energy.

what about a system with 3 masses, A, B and C
A is 100000 X B and C=A

A----------B-----------C

what KE now for B ???

I hope you see that this theory works for 2 body systems only
OR... maybe a mass "knows" what kinetic energy it has to have in relation to other surrounding bodies ?

You're mixing up kinetic and potential. If B is stationary in the middle between two equal masses A and C it has zero kinetic energy, and the same potential energy with respect to A as it does with respect to C. If you tap it toward A it will accelerate toward A and gain kinetic energy. At the same time, it will lose potential energy with respect to A and gain potential energy with respect to C. Total energy considering all three masses will be conserved.

See the Virial theorem.

what is ENERGY other than a word , does it exist or is it just a concept ?

See my prior post on that topic. You need to study science to grasp an understanding of energy in all its forms. If you were to stand where the post is in the above illustration, under the weight, you would realize as the weight crashed into you that energy is something which really does exist.

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could you tell it to me like a child, it works? As a nuclear reactor in a city format?

I can explain uranium fission to a child: We split uranium atoms and in the process, it releases energy and we convert that to electric power in nuclear power plants.

The thorium cycle is more complicated and I'm not sure a child can understand it. Even the scientists who wrote the article I cited are unsure of its commercial viability.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Question:

What is a micro black hole and where does it go?

They are hypothetical, we've never seen one. The LHC might create one and they will recognize it by the energy signature it creates. They disappear in what's been called "evaporation" but it's not the same type of evaporation that occurs when water turns from liquid to gas, it might occur in the form of Hawking radiation which like the micro black holes is also unconfirmed in experiment.

tiny black holes

If micro black holes do appear in the collisions created by the LHC, they would disintegrate rapidly, in around .000000000000000000000000001 seconds. They would decay into Standard Model or supersymmetric particles, creating events containing an exceptional number of tracks in our detectors, which we would easily spot.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You didn't comment on the model in the video I posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... It claims mainstream science is wrong, so I thought you might like it.

YEH.. he's absolutely right ! now it makes sense...



back to energy..
sure, I was thinking about potential energy and not kinetic energy...
you see here is the problem, you call it as you like whenever you like, it has no consistence.

What is energy again ???

I know that if one mass "hit" another mass there is interaction,
what I want to know is what energy is ??
and if you explain it to me, can you also explain how a kinetic energy can be negative ??

as I understand it now is... kinetic energy is the interaction between masses, right ??
how can it be negative like in the one electron model ??

Are you sure it's real and not just a concept ??

originally posted by: dragonridr
By itself no,You can make a liquid fuel that can sustain a reaction you take thorium add chloride or fluoride. There called thorium molten salt reactors. They have a couple of advantages over solid fuel reactors you can't have a melt down for example. Can use it to dispose of nuclear waste is another. And I guess as far as building them in other countries it removes the possibility of them making a bomb.

i think the primary route of research concerning thorium reactors is to transmute it into a highly unstable form of uranium which is then used to power a fission reactor. so the reactor uses a small bit of this bad uranium and the rest of the fuel is basically inert and safe. and the nasty uranium is used up quickly and turns into far safer elements.

a reply to: KrzYma
Either provide a time index in the video or provide a written source describing what you're talking about.

Given you had kinetic and potential energy confused my first guess is further confusion on your part.

So what's real? Depends on your definition of real. Mine is that if it's in a simulation, it's not real, but if it's happening outside the simulation, and it's confirmed in measurable experiments, it's real. For example when engineers design airplanes and other things, they calculate the forces expected in computer models such as finite element analysis. They program in material strengths and run simulations, but the simulations are not real. In order to confirm the simulations represent reality, they have to perform real tests like this one which by the way involves energy:

Boeing 777 Wing Test

It's only a 3 minute video but watch the part at 2:20, that's no longer a simulation, it's real.

Fortunately for the engineers involved, the real test was fairly consistent with the computer simulations which means their models worked and they knew what they were doing.

I noticed you didn't take my up on my offer for you to stand under the weight in this illustration, to see if the kinetic energy is real:

So maybe you believe the kinetic energy is real, and wonder if maybe the potential energy isn't.

However I'd argue it's also real because let's say you want to take the fallen weight on the right, and hoist it back up to its original position on the left. It won't magically levitate back up, rather it takes a measurable amount of energy to raise it back up, which means you can measure it so it's real in that sense.

It's so real that we use this to provide electric power for load balancing purposes. When demand for electric power is low, we can pump water up a mountain giving it potential energy. Then when demand increases, let the water run down the mountain through generators to supply cities with electricity, so it's lighting light bulbs and running factories. I don't see how much more real it can get than that. See diagram:

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH, or PHES) is a type of hydroelectric energy storage used by electric power systems for load balancing. The method stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation. Low-cost off-peak electric power is used to run the pumps. During periods of high electrical demand, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power.

You might have a hard time seeing the electric power, but you can see the light bulbs light up which should seem real enough to people without cognitive disorders.

at the bottom of this article on molten salt fission reactors which is interesting on it's own merits; is a mention of how thorium reactors work by converting harmless thorium to uranium 233.

nextbigfuture.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You didn't comment on the model in the video I posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... It claims mainstream science is wrong, so I thought you might like it.

YEH.. he's absolutely right ! now it makes sense...

back to energy..
sure, I was thinking about potential energy and not kinetic energy...
you see here is the problem, you call it as you like whenever you like, it has no consistence.

What is energy again ???

I know that if one mass "hit" another mass there is interaction,
what I want to know is what energy is ??
and if you explain it to me, can you also explain how a kinetic energy can be negative ??

as I understand it now is... kinetic energy is the interaction between masses, right ??
how can it be negative like in the one electron model ??

Are you sure it's real and not just a concept ??

This has to do with unbound States of electrons. The negative sign of energy means that the energy of the electron in an atom is lower than the energy of a free electron at rest. A free electron at rest is an electron that is at far enough away from the nucleus that its energy is assumed to be zero. The negative sign also indicates that the electron is bound to the nucleus. Do to QM you can have an electron outside its orbitals for a short period of time but it will always balance out to zero. This is 3rd year particle physics well beyond what you need to concern yourself with until you understand the basics. What you need to understand is for all practical purposes potential energy is zero.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: greenreflections
I suggest reading this post to see if that answers your question, but no those are not synonymous. We haven't got a good model yet for exactly what's in the vacuum but we're pretty sure it's not "nothing". Even if there's no baryonic matter present we think it probably contains at least some energy. Space is a more generic term that could be filled with air so it doesn't have to imply a vacuum, though it could be used that way also, but if you want to do that it would be better to give it a qualifier like "deep space" or "outer space" which would then imply a near vacuum.

yes, I can do that. Thanks for your reply!

You said that at least it contains some energy. Why 'some'? Would it be safe to say instead that deep space (space-time) is filled with energy?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You didn't comment on the model in the video I posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com... It claims mainstream science is wrong, so I thought you might like it.

YEH.. he's absolutely right ! now it makes sense...

back to energy..
sure, I was thinking about potential energy and not kinetic energy...
you see here is the problem, you call it as you like whenever you like, it has no consistence.

What is energy again ???

I know that if one mass "hit" another mass there is interaction,
what I want to know is what energy is ??
and if you explain it to me, can you also explain how a kinetic energy can be negative ??

as I understand it now is... kinetic energy is the interaction between masses, right ??
how can it be negative like in the one electron model ??

Are you sure it's real and not just a concept ??

May be energy is something that kept space-time in one piece? it is a glue))) Once the event over came holding together mechanism and released 'the glue'? Space-time volume has began to inflate and energy release was a trigger? Energy is not to be confined indefinitely? Energy is the ultimate part that governs space-time behaviour? It dictates via inner tension how far space-time must stretch?

It seeks weak regions to escape resistance once those arise? Black holes may be those punctures where energy can escape to? Space expansion is evidence of time flow?

thank you.


cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections

You said that at least it [vacuum] contains some energy. Why 'some'? Would it be safe to say instead that deep space (space-time) is filled with energy?

If I say that a glass is filled with water, I mean that the glass is full to capacity and no more water will fit. I would be hesitant to say that space is filled to capacity with energy.

However, you are correct in that there is energy everywhere and to find a parcel of space that does not contain energy is highly unlikely. In that respect it might be defensible to say "filled", but to me it would feel weird.