Expanding Earth

[Remo]

You both bring up great points, its clear the wheels are turning, and there's a lot of thought that's going into this, i would ask you to pause, and try something, go to google earth and play with it for just 30 minutes, flip it all over the place, look at it from every angle, visualize the coastlines, all of them from every angle, play with it, after a while you'll notice they all merge into a globe from every angle, visualize it. Then tell me, what do your eyes tell you? All theories aside.
www.earth.google.com

i did it with a physical globe, but after looking at google earth its even better

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Brokenhead, when teaching the increasingly moronic youngsters of the US, it's important to simplify things to the extreme to remain understood. It's a real gift! In any academic setting it becomes way more important to phrase correctly and consistent, something that under scrutiny still has a chance of remaining meaningful. I feel that's the main difference between us here, of what we require.

Ignoring facts that contradict your hypothesis is how science fiction works.

Every current scientific theory has some facts lying around to contradict it. That's why it's perfectly sound to talk in terms of likelihoods or improbabilities, and not so meaningful to talk about impossibilities, when it comes to assessing some theory.

Your second sentence is not complete. "Mass is a function of the energy and momentum." Of what? Matter and energy are the same thing, manifested differently. Mass is the measurement of matter in a local reference frame.

Momentum here has to do with position and velocity of any particle or in quantum physics even the wave function. So to say it's "manifested differently" has to do with momentum and it's perfectly right to say that mass is a function of energy and momentum, period.

[brokenhead]

Momentum here has to do with position and velocity of any particle or in quantum physics even the wave function. So to say it's "manifested differently" has to do with momentum and it's perfectly right to say that mass is a function of energy and momentum, period.

Momentum has nothing whatsoever to do with a particle's position. Momentum is the mass of an object times its velocity. Mass is a scalar quantity, velocity and momentum are both vector quantities. It's more correct to say that energy is a function of mass. A particle's total energy T is given by:

T = Mc^2 + 1/2Mv^2 (assuming zero potential energy)

Where M = the particle's rest mass and v is the scalar magnitude or "absolute value" of the velocity vector v, or v = |v|

This mass M is not a function of v for non-relativistic phenomena. It has nothing to do with position. This entire thread was supposedly about a non relativistic (I would guess) theory.

Diebert, you've never taken a physics class, have you? I'm not trying to put you down, but I have taken many of them. I don't know why you are trying to argue with me about this. You clearly have some confusion as to the definitions of mass and momentum, and I don't think you have ever solved a wave function, which I have. You are bringing in quantum mechanics to Neal's theory and QM does not apply to macroscopic objects, let alone planet-sized objects. I'm just saying.

[Remo]

Superfluidity from Quantum hydrodynamics is macroscopic, i would argue also that since Newtonian physics break down at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale, its not rock solid.

As for the gravitational constant here's an interesting article about it
http://www.physorg.com/news113031879.html
http://www.physorg.com/news95593687.html

seems Modified Gravity (MOG) theory is winning out at the moment as an observable phenomena. This has implications that are just as jarring as a growing earth, in that if either theory is true than a major rewrite is due.

[brokenhead]

[It] seems Modified Gravity (MOG) theory is winning out at the moment as an observable phenomena. This has implications that are just as jarring as a growing earth, in that if either theory is true than a major rewrite is due.

I didn't get that from those links you gave.

Superfluidity from Quantum hydrodynamics is macroscopic, i would argue also that since Newtonian physics break down at the subatomic scale and at the universal scale, its not rock solid.

The "expanding earth" theory is neither universal or microscopic. It is local. There would be no reason to suppose that Newtonian gravity breaks down at the scale involved. It actually is rock-solid, as any physicist would tell you. Even MOG proponents would not invoke it to contradict my simple analysis - mainly because it is correct, and because they wouldn't take the "evidence" that Neal gives as any reason to suppose Newton and Einstein were in error.

MO is a proposal to account for dark matter and dark energy, neither of which are involved in any expanding earth theory.

I am only slightly familiar with superfluidity, but from what I remember, it is a highly specific state mostly involving helium and hydrogen under very specific conditions. Also, I don't recall its effects explaining the spontaneous appearance of of matter, especially not millions of tons of it.

You and Diebert want to throw in anything you can Wikki up from the frontiers of research to say they could account for Neal's dubious "evidence" that the the earth in fact expanded. You are of course free to believe what you wish, but I wonder why you wouldn't want to take a more critical view, especially of something so outlandish. Even a moment's reflection should tell you that if the earth's mass somehow increased by 700% it would be thrown out of its orbit altogether.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This entire thread was supposedly about a non relativistic (I would guess) theory.

But the statement you're disputing was made in the context of general relativity. I'll give you some clues: the sentence preceding was "You know that gravity is shown in general relativity as space-time curvature?" and the sentence following was about: mass ... dependent ... on ... specific qualities in the relativistic domain

So my "mass is a function of the energy and momentum" doesn't need "completion" as you claimed or is not helped with your simplistic "matter and energy are the same thing". Check out the proper formula: "E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2" where p is momentum. Perhaps I should have said that mass is a function of energy, momentum and the speed of light :)

You are bringing in quantum mechanics to Neal's theory and QM does not apply to macroscopic objects, let alone planet-sized objects. I'm just saying.

It certainly applies to the definition of mass and its distribution throughout the universe. So when "Neal's theory" [which is not his theory, perhaps even this simple fact eludes you] struggles with a problem to explain an increase in mass or in general the accretion of matter, bringing in theories that address mass should not be beyond the scope.

You and Diebert want to throw in anything you can Wikki up from the frontiers of research to say they could account for Neal's dubious "evidence" that the the earth in fact expanded. You are of course free to believe what you wish, but I wonder why you wouldn't want to take a more critical view, especially of something so outlandish

Not once I've written anything seriously in support of the Expanding Earth theory as it stands, which again is not Neal's theory. He's just one of the better known evangelists. Be precise for once!

Again, you misread, misrepresent and in general haven't thought this all through that much. That's the reason I'm explaining this all to you because you really seem to believe you're saying something intelligent or informed while you're only stating obvious stuff and leaving out what you don't care to think about yet.

[brokenhead]

So my "mass is a function of the energy and momentum" doesn't need "completion" as you claimed or is not helped with your simplistic "matter and energy are the same thing". Check out the proper formula: "E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2" where p is momentum. Perhaps I should have said that mass is a function of energy, momentum and the speed of light :)

You clearly do not have a good grasp of what is meant by mass. The mass of the earth in the theory of Neal Adams et al is the rest mass, which does not depend on its velocity. In the above equation, you are using the magnitude of the momentum, not the momentum itself, which is a vector. The above is a scalar equation.

Consider this quote:

It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

– Albert Einstein in letter to L Barnett (quote from L. B. Okun, “The Concept of Mass,” Phys. Today 42, 31, June 1989.)

Again, you misread, misrepresent and in general haven't thought this all through that much.

I think I have thought it through. I've proven it cannot have happened. What more do you want me to do? Get a degree in plate tectonics so I can use geological science to prove it can't have happened?

That's the reason I'm explaining this all to you because you really seem to believe you're saying something intelligent or informed while you're only stating obvious stuff and leaving out what you don't care to think about yet.

Exactly what have you explained to me?

I "really seem to believe" that I am saying something intelligent and informed because I am saying something intelligent and informed. I didn't know for sure what to make of this theory of Adams et al at first, so I sat down with a pencil and paper and used my education and the facts ("informed") to see where those facts may lead (the "intelligent" thing to do.) If it was "obvious" to you that this scenario could not have happened on the basis of tested and accepted scientific principles, it wasn't to me. Therefore, I took the trouble to consider it and explore it.

If what I am saying is so obvious, why are you debating me? What is it we are arguing about? That I "don't care to think about" something I have already spent too much time thinking about?

It [QM] certainly applies to the definition of mass and its distribution throughout the universe. So when "Neal's theory" [which is not his theory, perhaps even this simple fact eludes you] struggles with a problem to explain an increase in mass or in general the accretion of matter, bringing in theories that address mass should not be beyond the scope.

I simply said "Neal's Theory" because it is easier to type than "the theory of Neal et al." My using this short hand does not indicate I have given short shrift to the theory itself. But I'm sure you know that.

You do not like my saying "impossible" instead of "extremely highly unlikely." I get that. I know all too well that engineering certainties are physical probabilities. Duly noted, although I think I have given my reasons for the choice of words.

Check out the proper formula: "E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2" where p is momentum. Perhaps I should have said that mass is a function of energy, momentum and the speed of light :)

Try to view things the way a physicist would for a moment. It is how I was trained, and maybe you'll understand my point of view better.

First, read the quote from Einstein above. The mass of a particle or object is an intrinsic property of that object. This is called the rest mass. It does not depend on velocity. Therefore, to say that its relativistic mass depends on energy, momentum, and the speed of light is not entirely accurate, because it also depends on its rest mass. You are looking at one equation and not comprehending what it signifies. I'll try to explain below, but it's difficult with the character-set limitations:

Let M be an object's rest mass. Let m be its relativistic mass.

m = M (1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) where v = instantaneous linear speed and c is the S.O.L., as usual.

The relativistic mass m depends only on the rest mass M and the the magnitude of the velocity. Note that energy and momentum are not explicit in this equation. When v gets close to 0, m is essentially M.

Per Einstein, though, relativistic mass is a less meaningful quantity than relativistic energy and momentum, both of which depend on M and v.

The object's relativistic energy E and momentum P depend on the rest mass and speed, not the other way around. Mass is an intrinsic property of an object, velocity is not. ( Since Einstein, the notions of inertial mass and gravitational mass are considered to be the same thing.)

So the reason I said you are missing the significance is that both E and P depend on m and v separately.

Physics, to my mind, is about stating things in the most useful form. Apparently you do not think I have done that. I'll just have to settle for having debunked the theory of Neal Adams et al.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So my "mass is a function of the energy and momentum" doesn't need "completion" as you claimed or is not helped with your simplistic "matter and energy are the same thing". Check out the proper formula: "E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2" where p is momentum. Perhaps I should have said that mass is a function of energy, momentum and the speed of light :)

You clearly do not have a good grasp of what is meant by mass. The mass of the earth in the theory of Neal Adams et al is the rest mass, which does not depend on its velocity.

I'm not sure if you just misinterpret my remarks consistently or perhaps you just don't get some of the fundamental intricates of relativity. First, in case you forgot, I originally didn't comment on the "mass of the earth", I was commenting on the property of mass itself, on microscopic scales.

In the above equation, you are using the magnitude of the momentum, not the momentum itself, which is a vector. The above is a scalar equation.

The formula is just a result from equaling E=m*c^2 with m0*c^2 / SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). The momentum in the formula in the quote above is just m*v, the total (relativistic) mass times the speed. The m in the formula of my quote above is actually the rest mass (which is not dependent on speed).

The first part might be the famous E=m*c^2, but this 'm' doesn't technically equal the rest mass (m0). It depends on the speed of the particle! The higher this speed, the more meaningless m0 becomes. With every-day values of course the formula resolves to E=m*c^2.

The mass of a particle or object is an intrinsic property of that object. This is called the rest mass. It does not depend on velocity. Therefore, to say that its relativistic mass depends on energy, momentum, and the speed of light is not entirely accurate, because it also depends on its rest mass.

For small speeds, the relativistic mass is the rest mass. There is no significant difference. For higher speeds, and for example a photon, the rest mass disappears; there's only kinetic energy left! This is why the term "relativistic mass" is mostly not used this way, one could just as well call it energy at this stage. But E=m*c^2 still holds and as such there is mass.

The object's relativistic energy E and momentum P depend on the rest mass and speed, not the other way around. Mass is an intrinsic property of an object, velocity is not.

And why not the other way around? Physics shows only a relation. Calling mass an intrinsic property of something has nothing to do with science. Which object are you talking about that has 'mass' as a property? There's no such 'thing' lying around having such properties. If anything an 'object' is nothing but an observation that only during calculations can suddenly have properties to measure, like rest mass, energy and momentum, or : energy and relativistic mass.

[brokenhead]

So my "mass is a function of the energy and momentum" doesn't need "completion" as you claimed or is not helped with your simplistic "matter and energy are the same thing". Check out the proper formula: "E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2" where p is momentum. Perhaps I should have said that mass is a function of energy, momentum and the speed of light :)

You clearly do not have a good grasp of what is meant by mass. The mass of the earth in the theory of Neal Adams et al is the rest mass, which does not depend on its velocity.

I'm not sure if you just misinterpret my remarks consistently or perhaps you just don't get some of the fundamental intricates of relativity. First, in case you forgot, I originally didn't comment on the "mass of the earth", I was commenting on the property of mass itself, on microscopic scales.

In the above equation, you are using the magnitude of the momentum, not the momentum itself, which is a vector. The above is a scalar equation.

The formula is just a result from equaling E=m*c^2 with m0*c^2 / SQRT(1-v^2/c^2). The momentum in the formula in the quote above is just m*v, the total (relativistic) mass times the speed. The m in the formula of my quote above is actually the rest mass (which is not dependent on speed).

The first part might be the famous E=m*c^2, but this 'm' doesn't technically equal the rest mass (m0). It depends on the speed of the particle! The higher this speed, the more meaningless m0 becomes. With every-day values of course the formula resolves to E=m*c^2.

The mass of a particle or object is an intrinsic property of that object. This is called the rest mass. It does not depend on velocity. Therefore, to say that its relativistic mass depends on energy, momentum, and the speed of light is not entirely accurate, because it also depends on its rest mass.

For small speeds, the relativistic mass is the rest mass. There is no significant difference. For higher speeds, and for example a photon, the rest mass disappears; there's only kinetic energy left! This is why the term "relativistic mass" is mostly not used this way, one could just as well call it energy at this stage. But E=m*c^2 still holds and as such there is mass.

The object's relativistic energy E and momentum P depend on the rest mass and speed, not the other way around. Mass is an intrinsic property of an object, velocity is not.

And why not the other way around? Physics shows only a relation. Calling mass an intrinsic property of something has nothing to do with science. Which object are you talking about that has 'mass' as a property? There's no such 'thing' lying around having such properties. If anything an 'object' is nothing but an observation that only during calculations can suddenly have properties to measure, like rest mass, energy and momentum, or : energy and relativistic mass.

Whatever, Diebert.