View Poll Results: See the post

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Increased

    18 45.00%
  • Decreased

    7 17.50%
  • Stayed the same

    5 12.50%
  • I dont know but i do care

    3 7.50%
  • I neither know nor care

    7 17.50%

the earth - heavier or lighter

This is a discussion on the earth - heavier or lighter within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Mass is directly proportional to the amount of heat (energy) in an object If you double the temperature of an ...

  1. #46
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Mass is directly proportional to the amount of heat (energy) in an object
    If you double the temperature of an object you do not double its mass.

    There is a mass associated with the K.E of an object, (or the sum of kinetic energies of its constituent parts) but that mass is almost always miniscule compared to the rest mass.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-17-2004 at 08:50 AM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  2. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    580
    an increase of 10 degrees celsius would increase the weight of a one pound cube of gold by about a millionth of a billionth of a pound.

    Therefore the kinetic energy difference between a 'hot' and 'cold' earth might actually have a substantial mass contribution
    Last edited by Darkness; 12-17-2004 at 12:44 PM.
    See you in 13

  3. #48
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Hmm fair point, i'm estimating a 10 degree loss in the temperature of the Earth translating into a loss of 10^11 Kg!

    Now having said that i can't seem to find any info on what kind of total temperature change is likely to have occured since the core appears to be self-heating through radioactive decay.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  4. #49
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    618
    http://www.expanding-earth.org/

    the main claim is that it's expanding, but in the proof it shows the mass is increasing also.
    Hmm

  5. #50
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Some scientists may dispute the notion that additional solid matter is created from solar energy by photosynthesis in plants and other living organisms, but they should consider coal beds that were formed in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) from living trees, and, on today’s surface, piles of leaves and wood chips are rapidly converted to soil by nematodes. They should also consider the massive deposits of limestone created by marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.) in earlier epochs
    This seems horribly confused.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  6. #51
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,892
    Indeed. Photosynthesis stores the sun's energy by using it to convert some chemicals that are low on energy (carbon dioxide, water) into some that are high on energy (oxygen, sugar). If you want, you can claim that energy equals mass and thus some mass is generated. However, you must not forget that this mass/energy relation is scaled by the light speed squared, in other words, the resulting mass is absurdly small.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  7. #52
    Linguistic Engineer... doubleanti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,459
    Niiice! Now instead of figuring things out, we can just vote on it! =)
    hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...

  8. #53
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Indeed. Photosynthesis stores the sun's energy by using it to convert some chemicals that are low on energy (carbon dioxide, water) into some that are high on energy (oxygen, sugar). If you want, you can claim that energy equals mass and thus some mass is generated. However, you must not forget that this mass/energy relation is scaled by the light speed squared, in other words, the resulting mass is absurdly small
    Well indeed but the way its phrased seems to imply something else:

    "additional solid matter"

    "coal beds that were formed in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) from living trees"

    "They should also consider the massive deposits of limestone created by marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.) in earlier epochs"

    and "on today’s surface, piles of leaves and wood chips are rapidly converted to soil by nematodes"

    All suggest the author thinks that all of the mass associated with coal, or limestone somehow jumps into existence. None of the processes he lists (limestone deposition, coal formation, and respiration) actually increase the mass of the Earth at all.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-17-2004 at 05:06 PM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  9. #54
    erstwhile
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,227
    >>This seems horribly confused<<

    And more than a little absurd. Still, in fairness, ~1% of visible light is 'fixed' by photosynthesis - the recycling of carbon, nitrogen etc. should obviously be ignored as it's just that: recycling what's essentially already there (except as noted below).

    The process of accretion is ongoing (except, perhaps, as noted earlier in the thread regarding the currently most favoured model concerning the formation of the Moon), assuming the accretion model of planetary formation is correct. If you're fortunate enough to be able to look up at a part of the night sky which is not polluted by city lights then it won't take you long to see, unaided, a small subsample of the crap constantly raining down on us. For those interested in back-of-the-envelope-type calculations, then the micrometeoroid flux may be of some interest, although that article only discusses those micrometeoroids within a certain range of masses (more here).

    Contributions to mass would also come from those particles of the solar wind which are funnelled via the Earth's magnetic field into the polar atmosphere, giving rise to the northern and southern 'lights', although that process may actually result in a net loss of atmosphere. There would also be a component of the solar wind that would punch through the magnetic field, either because it was electrically neutral (eg, neutral atoms) or was of sufficient energy to only experience some deceleration as they ploughed through (presumably, the particle flux of the solar wind follows some kind of known energy distribution?).

    In addition, there is a constant flux of cosmic rays which would also result in a mass increase over geological time. Consider the case of carbon 14 formation in the atmosphere from nitrogen 14 (n,p reaction: absorption of a neutron by N14, followed by proton emission). The hydrogen that results is unlikely to have the escape velocity to 'diffuse/leak' from the atmosphere, although this is likely to be temperature dependant. N14 (stable) can also be converted to O16(stable) by absorption of 2 neutrons (firstly by conversion to stable N15, then unstable N16) followed by beta emission. While not specific to this discussion, this article may be of some interest - particularly to those who live in Colorado.
    Last edited by Ken Fitlike; 12-17-2004 at 05:25 PM. Reason: bad accent: Colorado, not Colorada
    CProgramming FAQ
    Caution: this person may be a carrier of the misinformation virus.

  10. #55
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    And more than a little absurd. Still, in fairness, ~1% of visible light is 'fixed' by photosynthesis - the recycling of carbon, nitrogen etc. should obviously be ignored as it's just that: recycling what's essentially already there (except as noted below).
    I don't think photosynthesis will actually have any effect, other than altering part of the spectrum, atleast not when you factor in the effects of respiration (which will turn the added mass back into heat).

    -----------------------------------------

    The meteorite flux looks to be between 10^7 - 10^9 Kg per year. (Which negates the 10^4 Kg per year that leaves through heat loss, and presumeably is orders of magnitude higher than mass gains through solar wind or cosmic rays).

    Of course as mentioned the moon trumps all of these influences, weighing in at a loss of 10^22 Kg.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Asteroid almost hit the earth on Monday
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 10:37 PM
  2. Nice vistas with the equivalent Google Earth version
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 06:58 AM
  3. Scorched Earth Master
    By Polymorphic OOP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-12-2003, 04:08 AM
  4. energy and life on earth
    By Silvercord in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-20-2003, 10:39 AM
  5. God
    By datainjector in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 746
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 11:01 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21