If energy is mass in motion and that's heat....
in the same way you can throw a rock in the air, and it is certainly heavier than the air around it. the resultant in the differing rates of falling is the relative force able to be applied by the object.
In the case of a brick, there is a lot of mass for a relatively small surface area. this means that it is able to exert a lot of force per unit area of surface to displace the surrounding air. This means that it is able to undergo a larger acceleration when moving through the air with the only force being applied by gravity.
When we compare the relative surface area and mass with an air filled balloon hopefully you can see that a much smaller force is able to be exerted per unit area in comparison to the brick.
How can you know whether or not sound can propagate (or alternatively not) in an absolute zero environment. Thus far, to the extent of my knowledge, we cannot create an absolute zero environment so we don't know if sound does propagate. please correct me if I am mistaken.
when referring to vibrating particles he is referring to their thermal content (i think)
It's easy to say, "oh, it's air pressure". But, what is that air pressure if it's not the result of the molecules moving around...in other words..."heat"?
for some unknown reason, you guys are convinced that it's not heat and try to come up with various stuff to try to make it not be heat.
Rather than thinking of the object applying force to the air, how about thinking about how the air applies force to the object. The object is a solid while the air is a gas so, the air will be more active.
If the air molecules are striking the surface of the brick or balloon due to their thermal activity, what kind of forces are applied?
A mass in motion has energy... it itself is not energy.
I'm questioning the whole "vibrating" concept.
When energy is added to a molecule and it moves, does it move in a linear manner or does it move in an oscillatory manner?
I don't know the answer to that but, I suspect it moves in a linear manner and the "vibration" is sort of a synthetic effect. If you go way back to my pool ball analogy, the initial state is all the balls moving about randomly at some range of rates (analogous to heat). The balls are bumping into each other and changing direction and speeds depending on the angles of collision. To the casual observer, they can appear to be vibrating. But, really they are not. At least not in an oscillatory sense.
In something like a solid (especially a crystaline material), the molecules may be held in so orderly a manner that they do take on a true oscillatory motion. Like a ball at the end of a string being constrained to a circular orbit when it really wants to go zipping off in a straight line.
Why dosn't sound travel at a certain speed?
Regs Q
(for the purposes of previous points, you now chuck the lump of 'stuff' across the room. The particles have zero energy, but the lump has kinetic energy)
crash said:You're trying to make the point that user, 3v0 was making earlier. I can see what you two are saying but, I question whether it's possible to have motion and absolute zero happening at the same time. It almost becomes a Zen type concept. Can you have motion and a cessation of motion in the same object?
In relation to defining the energies....
Energy - The capacity of a system to do work.
By this, if it has thermal energy, it is capable to do work in relation to exertion of heat. Likewise kinetic energy, it is capable to do work due to its motion.
etc....
Kinetic energy- the energy an object has due to its motion. Dependant on mass and velocity.
Potential energy- the energy stored within a system that can be released at a later point.
Work - the exertion of energy.
any of these are up for debate
The reason we are putting the moving object at abs zero is so that you can not try to hide energy in moving molecules.
It is key that you understand this. So I will try again.
We are in space where friction is almost zero. Pick 2 large bodies.
By your thinking when they collide the energy released can only come from the heat they already contain.
But the reality is that if they are moving fast enough they will vaporize each other due to the heat generated by the collision.
The energy for this new heat comes from kinetic energy.
At this point you will want to talk about hidden heat we can not measures which is wrong. But if you want to pursue this hidden heat we need to talk about it too.
Examining underlying principals should not be called nit picking, or tangents.
3v0
The conversation does tend to wander about rather aimlessly. So let's tackle some of the basics.
That was never my point. It was you who wanted to place imaginary heat energy into objects. And you have just admitted to the existence of kinetic energy.crashsite said:But, then I say that just as surely, there is actual, relative movement of two adjacent molecules in a parcel of air. In other words you can't "hide" the energy by simply increasing the distance and throwing in the term, "absolute zero".
I would not say that. Their gravity fields interact regardless of temperature.You could try the argument that the two masses at absolute zero don't interact until they collide and I'd counter with the notation that the molecules in a parcel of air don't either.
That kinetic energy exists and is not heat. You keep denying the existence of kinetic and potential energy, or saying they are heat which they are not.crashsite said:Other than the detail of how two masses, both at absolute zero, can restore molecular thermal motion by colliding, and converting their respecive kinetic energy to heat, I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate.
It has exactly the same right in the conversation as does heat.crashsite said:I'm also not sure how the absolute zero scenario plays into how energy is moved along to propagate sound.
The conversation does tend to wander about rather aimlessly.
That kinetic energy exists and is not heat. You keep denying the existence of kinetic and potential energy, or saying they are heat which they are not.
In the case of the brick the potential for energy exists due to the gravitational attraction between the brick and the earth (no motion). The energy is not in the brick as you say."There's no potential energy. That compressed spring. That brick on the upper shelf. That drawn bow with a nocked arrow. They are all in as vigorous motion as when the spring is rebounding and the brick is falling and the arrow is being launched. The motion is simply at a scale that we can't see it so, we teach high school students that the motion is not there....it's just potentially there.
"There's no potential energy. That compressed spring. That brick on the upper shelf. That drawn bow with a nocked arrow. They are all in as vigorous motion as when the spring is rebounding and the brick is falling and the arrow is being launched. The motion is simply at a scale that we can't see it so, we teach high school students that the motion is not there....it's just potentially there.
"The energy is there in moving molecules. Those molecules are bouncing off each other in an essentially Newtonian way (action and reaction). What's more, they are doing it as vigorously when something is at rest as they are when it is in motion (maybe, even more so)."[/COLOR]
But, kinetic energy is kinetic energy whether it is between adjacent molecules or between masses at absolute zero temperature. Two masses, both at absolute zero, of which neither has any kinetic energy also has no potential for there to be energy either. So, I stand by that part.
In the case of gravity the energy we use to move two objects further apart is associated with the objects as potential energy. An any instant this is a unique quantity of energy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?