http://www.physorg.com/news108836759.html
I couldn"t help making this comment. If it"s true that matter doesn"t possess a hard core, and that it chaotically diffuses into space and that this expansion causes gravity (hence the Earth would be pushing you upward and expanding outward and the Moon is moving away as well, but keep at a rather constant distance by rescaling), then it wouldn"t be surprising to find that not all masses expand at equal rates (likely they could diverge much more widely on small scales as well).
Mass is C squared concentrated energy. Master E=mc^2
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 12 2007, 09:50 PM)
Mass is C squared concentrated energy. Master E=mc^2
Ok, we could rewrite that as:
m=e/c^2
We know energy is quantized, so it must be the c^2 term that varies and this agrees with the idea that statistical measures of variance are measured as the sum of squares.
In reality c^2 is the statistical sum of many terms and if we just concentrate on a 4 dimensional representation then we have 4 separate velocities:
c^2=vx^2+vy^2+vz^2+vt^2
(In reality though, time is also statistical and consists of many independent physical interactions that convey it, so you could swap out vt^2 and put in an array of other motions in other dimensions as well, so we effectively have the speed of light being a statistical/Euclidean metric of the statistical energies present in potentially an infinite number of dimensions, likely each associated with a prime number)
If we said that all motions in each dimension were at a constant velocity and we detected a unit of motion in each dimension once it completed a complete cyclic within it, then if we're counting the total energy in each wavelength as the square of the number of such impulses, it would come out to be:
1/1^2+1/2^2+1/3^2+1/4^+...= (pi^2)/6
Oh, now that's a beautiful number
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
It also happens to be the probability that two numbers share a common divisor, and we can naturally construct a chaotic space from them http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257855
Ok, we could rewrite that as:
m=e/c^2
We know energy is quantized, so it must be the c^2 term that varies and this agrees with the idea that statistical measures of variance are measured as the sum of squares.
In reality c^2 is the statistical sum of many terms and if we just concentrate on a 4 dimensional representation then we have 4 separate velocities:
c^2=vx^2+vy^2+vz^2+vt^2
(In reality though, time is also statistical and consists of many independent physical interactions that convey it, so you could swap out vt^2 and put in an array of other motions in other dimensions as well, so we effectively have the speed of light being a statistical/Euclidean metric of the statistical energies present in potentially an infinite number of dimensions, likely each associated with a prime number)
If we said that all motions in each dimension were at a constant velocity and we detected a unit of motion in each dimension once it completed a complete cyclic within it, then if we're counting the total energy in each wavelength as the square of the number of such impulses, it would come out to be:
1/1^2+1/2^2+1/3^2+1/4^+...= (pi^2)/6
Oh, now that's a beautiful number
http://www.pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/
It also happens to be the probability that two numbers share a common divisor, and we can naturally construct a chaotic space from them http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=257855
What the HELL are you people on about?!!!... I'm off to look at shiny things...
Based on my theory of Gravity and gravitation, using weight to determine mass, is ill-advised. It is possible to alter Gravity, and thus alter weight for a given mass, even though the mass has not changed at all, only its gravitational footprint. While this should normally only occur under artificial means, it is hypothetically possible even naturally.
My theory also suggests that stable matter can decay, causing mass to diminish over time. Depending on when the reference kilograms were mined from their source, and the composition of the alloy, I would expect all of the reference kilograms to eventually show similar losses within the same time frame, given similar storage conditions.
My theory also suggests that stable matter can decay, causing mass to diminish over time. Depending on when the reference kilograms were mined from their source, and the composition of the alloy, I would expect all of the reference kilograms to eventually show similar losses within the same time frame, given similar storage conditions.
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Sep 13 2007, 07:41 AM)
Based on my theory of Gravity and gravitation, using weight to determine mass, is ill-advised. It is possible to alter Gravity, and thus alter weight for a given mass, even though the mass has not changed at all, only its gravitational footprint. While this should normally only occur under artificial means, it is hypothetically possible even naturally.
My theory also suggests that stable matter can decay, causing mass to diminish over time. Depending on when the reference kilograms were mined from their source, and the composition of the alloy, I would expect all of the reference kilograms to eventually show similar losses within the same time frame, given similar storage conditions.
Agreed.
This "loss of mass" is best explained through some form of radioactive decay or bombardment from cosmic radiation causing the release of protons or neutrons. The decay could be very miniscule such that no detector would find anything abnormal, given the period of time involved.
My theory also suggests that stable matter can decay, causing mass to diminish over time. Depending on when the reference kilograms were mined from their source, and the composition of the alloy, I would expect all of the reference kilograms to eventually show similar losses within the same time frame, given similar storage conditions.
Agreed.
This "loss of mass" is best explained through some form of radioactive decay or bombardment from cosmic radiation causing the release of protons or neutrons. The decay could be very miniscule such that no detector would find anything abnormal, given the period of time involved.
"It is possible to alter Gravity"
Oh really? Do tell. :)
StevenA, I'm assuming you have read "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutchen which posits exactly that?
I fail to see how this article plays a role.
Oh really? Do tell. :)
StevenA, I'm assuming you have read "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutchen which posits exactly that?
I fail to see how this article plays a role.
Several people before mentioned some interesting hypotheses:
1.) Gravity on the earth changes from locale to locale. The results of GP-B and other gravitational survey satellites have shown variation on the Earth's gravity is not constant. Furthermore, since the Earth's core is dynamic, the gravity in Paris, France may not always remain constant.
2.) The position of the Earth in relation to the sun, and the position of the Moon in relation to the Earth may also have an effect on the results when weighing the Kilogram.
3.) An object may naturally lose mass due to normal entropic decay. I have a personal theory (which may or may not be correct) that light reinvigorates molecular bond energies due to the photoelectric effect. Photons are absorbed by the atoms, and electrons are ejected. This process may help recycle electrons and minimize decay. However, for an object specifically kept in the dark for nearly 120 years, there has been no photoelectric processes.
In any case, I agree that the definition for a kilogram should not come from a particular artifact, but instead should be derived mathematically from known constants, such as the speed of light and mass/energy conversion rations, thus: M=E/C^2
1.) Gravity on the earth changes from locale to locale. The results of GP-B and other gravitational survey satellites have shown variation on the Earth's gravity is not constant. Furthermore, since the Earth's core is dynamic, the gravity in Paris, France may not always remain constant.
2.) The position of the Earth in relation to the sun, and the position of the Moon in relation to the Earth may also have an effect on the results when weighing the Kilogram.
3.) An object may naturally lose mass due to normal entropic decay. I have a personal theory (which may or may not be correct) that light reinvigorates molecular bond energies due to the photoelectric effect. Photons are absorbed by the atoms, and electrons are ejected. This process may help recycle electrons and minimize decay. However, for an object specifically kept in the dark for nearly 120 years, there has been no photoelectric processes.
In any case, I agree that the definition for a kilogram should not come from a particular artifact, but instead should be derived mathematically from known constants, such as the speed of light and mass/energy conversion rations, thus: M=E/C^2
QUOTE (earls+Sep 13 2007, 02:36 PM)
StevenA, I'm assuming you have read "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutchen which posits exactly that?
I fail to see how this article plays a role.
I hadn't read that but I'll have to check it out. If the universe is seen to be expanding, then why should it only occur elsewhere?
If quantum tunnelling occurs in electronics, then it should occur in an electron orbital as well. It could be that protons tunnel also and the Earth is constantly diffusing outward (and likely space diffusing inward at the same time, so it would be largely a symmetrical effect. This would need to be the case to observer something like gravitational tidal forces - note, the Moon is actually slowly moving away from the Earth also)
Consider this question? "How large are you?" If you grab some other piece of matter that's made out of similar materials as your body, then likely any expansion of one over time is closely correlated to the expansion of the other as well. You wouldn't notice this directly except you could find a small invisible attractive force that wasn't immediately detectable as any specific force, because it would just be the net influence of a large number of other forces, but you would notice over time that two objects would gradually appear to move together - gravity.
Also this would give a way to unite the ideals of a steady state universe with observations of a Big Bang as photons travelling through such a choatic space would inherit some of those traits and not accurately represent the object at a distance. This could also explain why dark matter is seen (if 90%+ of the mass of the universe is suppose to contain a mysterious force then we're likely looking through it here too and it's not something isolated to the 90%+ of the universe we can't interact with directly). If space doesn't expand uniformly then distances aren't necessarily measured correctly and we could easily get incorrect measurements of orbital velocities from this.
Also a black hole in that case wouldn't suck you into a single point, but would instead travel outward at light speed and hit you in the face and it would be led by a wave of "Hawking Radiation" as some components of the leading edge tunneled faster than the other (this assumes space grows 3 dimensionally though), but of course if you far enough away from such an expansion, you'd have plenty of time to move away and it would never appear very large as it would be far away and you'd be moving on larger scales by the time its representation got to you.
This also agrees with time dilation in Relativity if "local" measurements of time are made by the cross interactions of particles moving against each other locally - if you instead have them move in a straight line, then the system does interact with itself and age, also you can see this as making the moving object appear to be compressed and smaller when moving (length contract) because it spreads less time diffusing outward as "time".
Also consider, as Lacrotius mentioned that gravity in some areas of the Earth is less, this could be seen as the expansion being faster or slower in an area and resulting in a faster or slower rate of diffusion of an object because it spends more or less time moving coherently in onw direction.
I fail to see how this article plays a role.
I hadn't read that but I'll have to check it out. If the universe is seen to be expanding, then why should it only occur elsewhere?
If quantum tunnelling occurs in electronics, then it should occur in an electron orbital as well. It could be that protons tunnel also and the Earth is constantly diffusing outward (and likely space diffusing inward at the same time, so it would be largely a symmetrical effect. This would need to be the case to observer something like gravitational tidal forces - note, the Moon is actually slowly moving away from the Earth also)
Consider this question? "How large are you?" If you grab some other piece of matter that's made out of similar materials as your body, then likely any expansion of one over time is closely correlated to the expansion of the other as well. You wouldn't notice this directly except you could find a small invisible attractive force that wasn't immediately detectable as any specific force, because it would just be the net influence of a large number of other forces, but you would notice over time that two objects would gradually appear to move together - gravity.
Also this would give a way to unite the ideals of a steady state universe with observations of a Big Bang as photons travelling through such a choatic space would inherit some of those traits and not accurately represent the object at a distance. This could also explain why dark matter is seen (if 90%+ of the mass of the universe is suppose to contain a mysterious force then we're likely looking through it here too and it's not something isolated to the 90%+ of the universe we can't interact with directly). If space doesn't expand uniformly then distances aren't necessarily measured correctly and we could easily get incorrect measurements of orbital velocities from this.
Also a black hole in that case wouldn't suck you into a single point, but would instead travel outward at light speed and hit you in the face and it would be led by a wave of "Hawking Radiation" as some components of the leading edge tunneled faster than the other (this assumes space grows 3 dimensionally though), but of course if you far enough away from such an expansion, you'd have plenty of time to move away and it would never appear very large as it would be far away and you'd be moving on larger scales by the time its representation got to you.
This also agrees with time dilation in Relativity if "local" measurements of time are made by the cross interactions of particles moving against each other locally - if you instead have them move in a straight line, then the system does interact with itself and age, also you can see this as making the moving object appear to be compressed and smaller when moving (length contract) because it spreads less time diffusing outward as "time".
Also consider, as Lacrotius mentioned that gravity in some areas of the Earth is less, this could be seen as the expansion being faster or slower in an area and resulting in a faster or slower rate of diffusion of an object because it spends more or less time moving coherently in onw direction.
Hi StevenA, Latrosicarius, MrGrynch, Nick, Quantum_Conundrum, earls... et al,
Shrinking Kilogram Bewilders Physicists: Physorg
Assuming our French friends have not just been "sloppy" here... There is one concept that has not been postulated.... Non-local quantum entanglement. Is it possible that something "non-local" is affecting the mass through gradual entanglement? Particles like this kilogram mass may become entangled with other particles sharing "attributes" with them. These attributes may cause the mass to increase or decrease depending on the ensemble of particles and the level of entanglement. It has always been assumed that a particles mass is independent of all other particles in the Universe but we also know that at some level this is not true because of quantum non-locality. Maybe it is time to check these things out. Maybe a mass in isolation depends on the distant parts of the Universe (Machs Principle) and upon some more local parts but still short range distant parts of the Universe as well. Would a standard kilogram weigh a kilo in "empty space " far away from the influence of planets.... far away from regions being "soaked" in a constant acceleration field caused by other similar matter particles?
I do not think we know enough to say "yes" or "no" simply based on our experiments.
Cheers
Shrinking Kilogram Bewilders Physicists: Physorg
Assuming our French friends have not just been "sloppy" here... There is one concept that has not been postulated.... Non-local quantum entanglement. Is it possible that something "non-local" is affecting the mass through gradual entanglement? Particles like this kilogram mass may become entangled with other particles sharing "attributes" with them. These attributes may cause the mass to increase or decrease depending on the ensemble of particles and the level of entanglement. It has always been assumed that a particles mass is independent of all other particles in the Universe but we also know that at some level this is not true because of quantum non-locality. Maybe it is time to check these things out. Maybe a mass in isolation depends on the distant parts of the Universe (Machs Principle) and upon some more local parts but still short range distant parts of the Universe as well. Would a standard kilogram weigh a kilo in "empty space " far away from the influence of planets.... far away from regions being "soaked" in a constant acceleration field caused by other similar matter particles?
I do not think we know enough to say "yes" or "no" simply based on our experiments.
Cheers
Bah. Bet it's just cosmic rays converting mass to photons. Isn't that what happens in a neutrino detector?
As this object is the standard then it has not lost any mass at all. Other objects have gained mass. Why? Because their mass, including the copies of this object, are calculated based on this object. So if they have more mass than the standard then they are out of calibration with the standard kilogram not the other way around. The standard kilogram can not be changing mass, it is the standard and what ever mass it has that is by definition the kilogram otherwise it would not be the standard kilogram.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Sep 14 2007, 02:52 AM)
Hi StevenA, Latrosicarius, MrGrynch, Nick, Quantum_Conundrum, earls... et al,
Shrinking Kilogram Bewilders Physicists: Physorg
Assuming our French friends have not just been "sloppy" here... There is one concept that has not been postulated.... Non-local quantum entanglement. Is it possible that something "non-local" is affecting the mass through gradual entanglement? Particles like this kilogram mass may become entangled with other particles sharing "attributes" with them. These attributes may cause the mass to increase or decrease depending on the ensemble of particles and the level of entanglement. It has always been assumed that a particles mass is independent of all other particles in the Universe but we also know that at some level this is not true because of quantum non-locality. Maybe it is time to check these things out. Maybe a mass in isolation depends on the distant parts of the Universe (Machs Principle) and upon some more local parts but still short range distant parts of the Universe as well. Would a standard kilogram weigh a kilo in "empty space " far away from the influence of planets.... far away from regions being "soaked" in a constant acceleration field caused by other similar matter particles?
I do not think we know enough to say "yes" or "no" simply based on our experiments.
Cheers
Yes, it's quite possible that somehow the material has been mishandled and it would be interesting to know if other measures have slowly drifted over time in comparison to each other as well. If it's just one mass, then it likely would be mishandling of one, but mass is inherently a statistical measurement and need only be approximately conserved on a specific case over a limited time.
I'd agree though that all matter in the universe should share at least 2 properties in common and likely 3, even if not all are fundamental but arise from statistical observations instead. This is because they must maintain conserved quantities relative to each other and this implies a fundamental metric shared by all of them. At least 2 quantities should be precisely maintained, as we can localize the matter of a star in terms of relative angles, but distance would be a good candidate for the statistical term (basically we can describe the distance between two masses by 3 coordinates. If we use rectangular coordinates, this ends up being rather symettrical and not related to any physical property so errors and statistical measurements can arise in terms of all three rectangular coordinates, but instead if we measure using 2 angles and a distance, then we have more fundamental units as the distance can be correlated to the delay between the objects (ultimately a round trip measurement) and the angles are more directly measurable, whereas rectangular coordinates can be aribtrarily aligned and not provide a way to align errors as arising from any specific source).
So anyway, yes, all matter in the unverse should share at least 3 properties in common with space, in order that we can see a mass as localized at a location in a 3 dimensional space. If an observers reference for mass or space changes, then that would influence observations of all other masses - and some masses would become more correlated with an observer and some less over time, depending upon the component of its spacial representation that makes it uniquely defined (related to Pauli's Exclusionary Principle)
Shrinking Kilogram Bewilders Physicists: Physorg
Assuming our French friends have not just been "sloppy" here... There is one concept that has not been postulated.... Non-local quantum entanglement. Is it possible that something "non-local" is affecting the mass through gradual entanglement? Particles like this kilogram mass may become entangled with other particles sharing "attributes" with them. These attributes may cause the mass to increase or decrease depending on the ensemble of particles and the level of entanglement. It has always been assumed that a particles mass is independent of all other particles in the Universe but we also know that at some level this is not true because of quantum non-locality. Maybe it is time to check these things out. Maybe a mass in isolation depends on the distant parts of the Universe (Machs Principle) and upon some more local parts but still short range distant parts of the Universe as well. Would a standard kilogram weigh a kilo in "empty space " far away from the influence of planets.... far away from regions being "soaked" in a constant acceleration field caused by other similar matter particles?
I do not think we know enough to say "yes" or "no" simply based on our experiments.
Cheers
Yes, it's quite possible that somehow the material has been mishandled and it would be interesting to know if other measures have slowly drifted over time in comparison to each other as well. If it's just one mass, then it likely would be mishandling of one, but mass is inherently a statistical measurement and need only be approximately conserved on a specific case over a limited time.
I'd agree though that all matter in the universe should share at least 2 properties in common and likely 3, even if not all are fundamental but arise from statistical observations instead. This is because they must maintain conserved quantities relative to each other and this implies a fundamental metric shared by all of them. At least 2 quantities should be precisely maintained, as we can localize the matter of a star in terms of relative angles, but distance would be a good candidate for the statistical term (basically we can describe the distance between two masses by 3 coordinates. If we use rectangular coordinates, this ends up being rather symettrical and not related to any physical property so errors and statistical measurements can arise in terms of all three rectangular coordinates, but instead if we measure using 2 angles and a distance, then we have more fundamental units as the distance can be correlated to the delay between the objects (ultimately a round trip measurement) and the angles are more directly measurable, whereas rectangular coordinates can be aribtrarily aligned and not provide a way to align errors as arising from any specific source).
So anyway, yes, all matter in the unverse should share at least 3 properties in common with space, in order that we can see a mass as localized at a location in a 3 dimensional space. If an observers reference for mass or space changes, then that would influence observations of all other masses - and some masses would become more correlated with an observer and some less over time, depending upon the component of its spacial representation that makes it uniquely defined (related to Pauli's Exclusionary Principle)
A mole isn't even related to something like a unit of mass or energy. Its just a number. Just like a dozen is a number. There's no way to compare them.
The only thing I can think about is that due to growing evil in the world, the little-known Jeebus-force is no longer able to hold the molecules together.
The Jeebus force is very much occupied with fighting evil.
The Jeebus force is very much occupied with fighting evil.
Physicists are baffled by how the weight that defines a kilogram has lost mass over time. If physicists cannot understand the change in mass over 100 years, how can they have any confidence about extrapolating back a thousand or million or billion years?
QUOTE (Conservapedia+Sep 15 2007, 03:51 PM)
Physicists are baffled by how the weight that defines a kilogram has lost mass over time. If physicists cannot understand the change in mass over 100 years, how can they have any confidence about extrapolating back a thousand or million or billion years?
I think that's a very good question. I remembered reading some ideas that have claimed that the gravitational constant varies over time, though it would seem it can't vary too much or planetary orbitals would be affected and they maintain some rather constant ratios that make them stable (then again, it could depend upon how the gravitational constant varied as to whether or not it would maintain stable orbital ratios).
On one hand you need some rigid reference/metric in order to build up a solid understanding of something, but also just because we define something as a constant, doesn't necessarily mean it will remain so.
My assumption is that the properties of matter are subjectively determined, though logically limited to specific features - if, for example, you pick up a rock, it's not just the rock that determines whether or not an interaction occurs, it's properties inherent in you also and the way you interact with matter that determine what properties those interactions possess. If your internal reference for mass changes, then the manner in which you see matter interact with yourself also changes, just as a change in vision alters the properties you observer in color etc.
When you physically measure something there's always two components - a voltmeter has two terminals, a distance includes a ruler, a time includes a clock etc. and an observation includes an observer.
I think that's a very good question. I remembered reading some ideas that have claimed that the gravitational constant varies over time, though it would seem it can't vary too much or planetary orbitals would be affected and they maintain some rather constant ratios that make them stable (then again, it could depend upon how the gravitational constant varied as to whether or not it would maintain stable orbital ratios).
On one hand you need some rigid reference/metric in order to build up a solid understanding of something, but also just because we define something as a constant, doesn't necessarily mean it will remain so.
My assumption is that the properties of matter are subjectively determined, though logically limited to specific features - if, for example, you pick up a rock, it's not just the rock that determines whether or not an interaction occurs, it's properties inherent in you also and the way you interact with matter that determine what properties those interactions possess. If your internal reference for mass changes, then the manner in which you see matter interact with yourself also changes, just as a change in vision alters the properties you observer in color etc.
When you physically measure something there's always two components - a voltmeter has two terminals, a distance includes a ruler, a time includes a clock etc. and an observation includes an observer.
Oh god.
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far. You'd think that I would be past being surprised by anything I saw on these forums.
I'm shocked, stunned, and more then a little amazed.
Okay, first of all, the point that was raised about gravity changing.
Gravity changes all the time everywhere. Anybody who has studied even introductory Geophysics.
Sheesh.
Gravity tends to, for example, be high over subduction zones, and low over areas of thin crust (for example oceanic basins).
Areas that have in, say the last millenia, been under ice, or... There's a whole bunch of reasons why local or regional gravitational anomalies occur, and none of them have anything to do with some of the questionable physics I've seen spouted on this thread.
I don't have the figure (although i'm trying to find them) but the explanation could be as simple as the isostatic rebound of the scandanavian peninsula (which came about as a result of the melting of the Icesheet at the end of the last ice age. The Isostatic rebound generates a gravitational negative gravitational anomaly that moves in a postivie direction over time.
And as far as he nonsense that was raised about the Mole?
1 mole is defined as the number of atoms present in 12 grams of Carbon-12. So if the weight standard is off, then the mole is off.
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far. You'd think that I would be past being surprised by anything I saw on these forums.
I'm shocked, stunned, and more then a little amazed.
Okay, first of all, the point that was raised about gravity changing.
Gravity changes all the time everywhere. Anybody who has studied even introductory Geophysics.
Sheesh.
Gravity tends to, for example, be high over subduction zones, and low over areas of thin crust (for example oceanic basins).
Areas that have in, say the last millenia, been under ice, or... There's a whole bunch of reasons why local or regional gravitational anomalies occur, and none of them have anything to do with some of the questionable physics I've seen spouted on this thread.
I don't have the figure (although i'm trying to find them) but the explanation could be as simple as the isostatic rebound of the scandanavian peninsula (which came about as a result of the melting of the Icesheet at the end of the last ice age. The Isostatic rebound generates a gravitational negative gravitational anomaly that moves in a postivie direction over time.
And as far as he nonsense that was raised about the Mole?
1 mole is defined as the number of atoms present in 12 grams of Carbon-12. So if the weight standard is off, then the mole is off.
As I understand there are two possibilities being considered:-
1. Gravity is changing
2. Mishandling of the weights
For a start if gravity were to change then all weights should change equally so it would be hard by that measure to determine if gravity was changing.
Second mishandling, unlikely as the original would only be handled by professionals and extreme care and calibration would show any 'instant change' to any copy of the weight.
A third option is independent of gravity which for all I know could be changing. It is the presence of dark matter. So far undetected around us but if it was very minimal and was 'absorbed' by matter in much the same way a photon is then the lighting or the keeping in a thick enclosure may prevent the same absorption.
If option three is the case and dark matter accretes to one finger prints mass then consider the sun. If it falls to earth and increases our mass and is blown by the sun on solar wind ... are our calculations of the mass of the sun over 4.5 billion years as accurate as we would like to think.
Just a hypothetical to consider, that's all, cheers
1. Gravity is changing
2. Mishandling of the weights
For a start if gravity were to change then all weights should change equally so it would be hard by that measure to determine if gravity was changing.
Second mishandling, unlikely as the original would only be handled by professionals and extreme care and calibration would show any 'instant change' to any copy of the weight.
A third option is independent of gravity which for all I know could be changing. It is the presence of dark matter. So far undetected around us but if it was very minimal and was 'absorbed' by matter in much the same way a photon is then the lighting or the keeping in a thick enclosure may prevent the same absorption.
If option three is the case and dark matter accretes to one finger prints mass then consider the sun. If it falls to earth and increases our mass and is blown by the sun on solar wind ... are our calculations of the mass of the sun over 4.5 billion years as accurate as we would like to think.
Just a hypothetical to consider, that's all, cheers
QUOTE (gkearney+Sep 14 2007, 09:27 AM)
As this object is the standard then it has not lost any mass at all. Other objects have gained mass. Why? Because their mass, including the copies of this object, are calculated based on this object. So if they have more mass than the standard then they are out of calibration with the standard kilogram not the other way around. The standard kilogram can not be changing mass, it is the standard and what ever mass it has that is by definition the kilogram otherwise it would not be the standard kilogram.
Technically, yes, but luckily we aren't stupid enough to declare that EVERYTHING else in the universe just gained a few micrograms spontaneously, for no reason at all. Obviously the standard has lost some of it's original mass.
The logical thing to do would be to take the average of the other 12(?) copies and declare a new standard.
Either that, or re-define the measurement of mass based on other invariant constants as was mentioned earlier.
Technically, yes, but luckily we aren't stupid enough to declare that EVERYTHING else in the universe just gained a few micrograms spontaneously, for no reason at all. Obviously the standard has lost some of it's original mass.
The logical thing to do would be to take the average of the other 12(?) copies and declare a new standard.
Either that, or re-define the measurement of mass based on other invariant constants as was mentioned earlier.
While the folks in Paris were doing their measuring of the “Kilogram” (and not being sloppy) were the folks at CERN conducting any unusual tests with their Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that had unintended consequences not in current literature?
I thought I would ask since I'm not privy.
On the other hand, perhaps heat played a role in the current environmental situation.
I thought I would ask since I'm not privy.
On the other hand, perhaps heat played a role in the current environmental situation.
QUOTE (RavenWizard+Sep 18 2007, 03:48 AM)
While the folks in Paris were doing their measuring of the “Kilogram” (and not being sloppy) were the folks at CERN conducting any unusual tests with their Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that had unintended consequences not in current literature?
I thought I would ask since I'm not privy.
On the other hand, perhaps heat played a role in the current environmental situation.
I would be very sure the good people of France are exceptionally careful with their measurements. If it isn't decrease due to exposure to energy i.e. photons then the other possibility is gravity.
The problem is gravity should equally affect each weight and so not cause change.
A potential overall increasing of gravity is an idea I am pursuing on another forum based on 'Twister Theory' and matter contraction based on Lorentz contraction. But as stated that should equally be applied to each weight.
As far as CERN goes any apparent breaking of the first law of thermodynamics would be the displacement of that energy distributed out within the surrounding physical dimensions at point of application. I don't see the link to CERN unless LIGO starts pinpointing gravitational anomalies moving within the earth's surface.
In that case we have a stable micro black hole which when locally heavy enough will be ejected from the planet due to the moon's orbit being a rotational acceleration influencing the earth.
Please note this is an experimental model and certainly not a mainstream explanation. That is not to say we really do know all there is to know yet.
I thought I would ask since I'm not privy.
On the other hand, perhaps heat played a role in the current environmental situation.
I would be very sure the good people of France are exceptionally careful with their measurements. If it isn't decrease due to exposure to energy i.e. photons then the other possibility is gravity.
The problem is gravity should equally affect each weight and so not cause change.
A potential overall increasing of gravity is an idea I am pursuing on another forum based on 'Twister Theory' and matter contraction based on Lorentz contraction. But as stated that should equally be applied to each weight.
As far as CERN goes any apparent breaking of the first law of thermodynamics would be the displacement of that energy distributed out within the surrounding physical dimensions at point of application. I don't see the link to CERN unless LIGO starts pinpointing gravitational anomalies moving within the earth's surface.
In that case we have a stable micro black hole which when locally heavy enough will be ejected from the planet due to the moon's orbit being a rotational acceleration influencing the earth.
Please note this is an experimental model and certainly not a mainstream explanation. That is not to say we really do know all there is to know yet.
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 16 2007, 02:29 AM)
Oh god.
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far.
I quite agree.
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far.
I quite agree.
Isn't this the enigma?
Physicist Richard Davis of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, southwest of Paris, says the reference kilo appears to have lost 50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies.
"The mystery is that they were all made of the same material, and many were made at the same time and kept under the same conditions, and yet the masses among them are slowly drifting apart," he said. "We don't really have a good hypothesis for it."
They seem to change weight notably even if under the 'same' conditions?
Physicist Richard Davis of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, southwest of Paris, says the reference kilo appears to have lost 50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies.
"The mystery is that they were all made of the same material, and many were made at the same time and kept under the same conditions, and yet the masses among them are slowly drifting apart," he said. "We don't really have a good hypothesis for it."
They seem to change weight notably even if under the 'same' conditions?
I think the issue here is that the mass has changed significantly in a short space of time. Assuming that fingerprints weren't cleaned off or other clumsy mistake then it is a huge problem. Assuming that all of the kilos have been kept in the same sterile conditions then the only factor left is that the composition of each weight must be different. All of them have lost weight so that is a clue also. Clearly there is some intrinsic decay/sublimation/oxidization.
Clearly the mass and condition of the inner container needs to be taken into account as some fine dust from oxidation would be deposited there. There is also the issue of bacterial/fungal growth which could have diminished over 100 years either from dying off or cleaning. Again the inner container would be the place to look for the detritus.
Why are we using an arbitrary reference kilo anyway? There must be a more scientific approach.
Clearly the mass and condition of the inner container needs to be taken into account as some fine dust from oxidation would be deposited there. There is also the issue of bacterial/fungal growth which could have diminished over 100 years either from dying off or cleaning. Again the inner container would be the place to look for the detritus.
Why are we using an arbitrary reference kilo anyway? There must be a more scientific approach.
“It’s not clear whether the original has become lighter, or the national prototypes have become heavier,” said Michael Borys, a senior researcher with Germany’s national measures institute in Braunschweig. “But by definition, only the original represents exactly a kilogram.”
This to me is the interesting question; will the standard be lightened or will the original be judged anomalous for whatever reason? The 'original cesium clocks are still calibrated by the more accurate-for 1 week periods-hydrogen ones, aren't they? And what of the greater accuracy achieved since 1945?
Many original standards will have to be reconsidered, imvho, as our ability to measure advances. Perhaps statistics will determine the standard, and for more than mass, in the future?
This to me is the interesting question; will the standard be lightened or will the original be judged anomalous for whatever reason? The 'original cesium clocks are still calibrated by the more accurate-for 1 week periods-hydrogen ones, aren't they? And what of the greater accuracy achieved since 1945?
Many original standards will have to be reconsidered, imvho, as our ability to measure advances. Perhaps statistics will determine the standard, and for more than mass, in the future?
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 13 2007, 12:32 AM)
Could mass be a statistical measurement?
The "Shrinking Kilogram Mystery" is most probably the simple consequence of abrasion due the primitive and somewhat drastic "cleaning methods", especially the usage of hot vapor, followed by mechanical wiping. Iridium-platinum alloy is much soften, then the stainless steel. Note that the etalon is manipulated without gloves. A poor prototype!
Yikes!
I hope those pictures of etalon cleaning are a joke. Tell me it's not true.
Some guy wiping it with an old rag!!! He isn't even wearing gloves!
Where is the sterile field? What does he do when the camera crew are not around.
Probably puts it in his pocket with his keys when he goes for lunch. Homer Simpson could do a better job.
If the universe is expanding, it's interior is expanding as well as it's outer edge,
but the expansion is not wholly uniform, causing these "anomalies"
You know it would be nice if little gems like matter expanding over time didn't keep showing up!
OK it is fairly obvious the basis of this idea is that due to the universe expanding is that our measurements are getting bigger.
So matter is gaining size and loosing mass? By being gravitationally connected to dark energy our perception of expansion of our world contracts the measurements we make.
Why is science continuing to discover such strange things?
(Incidentally I am still looking on politely but we are living in some very strange times, at least someone could admit that).
I must admit this gets more amusing as it goes along.
What gets me is why wait 30 years?
Why not get a 300 meter bar and get a more accurate reading in just two months.
In fact why not get various bars say of titanium with a low specific density, iron (or nickle-iron) as a control and an iridium bar?
Now here is a clue if all the bars expand then we are in an expanding universe.
However, if the light bar shrinks, iron stays the same and the iridium bar expands then we are in a world contracting due to gravity expanding our measurements
Given that it is only the future of everything we know of perhaps it is not such a silly idea after all.
QUOTE (Hamzzz+Sep 18 2007, 05:30 AM)
...a possible answer to the mystery of the shrinking "master" kilogram..
The "Shrinking Kilogram Mystery" is most probably the simple consequence of abrasion due the primitive and somewhat drastic "cleaning methods", especially the usage of hot vapor, followed by mechanical wiping. Iridium-platinum alloy is much soften, then the stainless steel. Note that the etalon is manipulated without gloves. A poor prototype!
The "Shrinking Kilogram Mystery" is most probably the simple consequence of abrasion due the primitive and somewhat drastic "cleaning methods", especially the usage of hot vapor, followed by mechanical wiping. Iridium-platinum alloy is much soften, then the stainless steel. Note that the etalon is manipulated without gloves. A poor prototype!
You might have a point there :)
If one want to take this seriously one will have to place weights of the same material in the same conditions for like a ??? And then interfere their weight by some indirect means (Just to be sure:)
And i will most probably be dead before it will be proved any way ::))
If one want to take this seriously one will have to place weights of the same material in the same conditions for like a ??? And then interfere their weight by some indirect means (Just to be sure:)
And i will most probably be dead before it will be proved any way ::))
If we exclude all the other more-less possible ordinary reasons, this could be a first direct proof of one fundamental law
m = m_0exp(-HeaM/r) ~= m_0(1- HeaM/r)
where m_0 is mass of etalons far of any M, Hea = G/c^2 and M would be mass of Earth in this case. The above law we can see in two way: 1. as an expression of mutual dependance of all cosmic masses and 2. as sort of a gravitational decaying of each and every mass in a given static G-potential.
To be clear, in this particular case, mass m of each etalon depends on its geographic altitude relative to geoid. Or in other words, static G-potential is not in the form of -k/r but in the form of exp(-K/r).
You are wellcome to "Wave Cosmodynamics"
m = m_0exp(-HeaM/r) ~= m_0(1- HeaM/r)
where m_0 is mass of etalons far of any M, Hea = G/c^2 and M would be mass of Earth in this case. The above law we can see in two way: 1. as an expression of mutual dependance of all cosmic masses and 2. as sort of a gravitational decaying of each and every mass in a given static G-potential.
To be clear, in this particular case, mass m of each etalon depends on its geographic altitude relative to geoid. Or in other words, static G-potential is not in the form of -k/r but in the form of exp(-K/r).
You are wellcome to "Wave Cosmodynamics"
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 18 2007, 10:43 PM)
The "Shrinking Kilogram Mystery" is most probably the simple consequence of abrasion due the primitive and somewhat drastic "cleaning methods", especially the usage of hot vapor, followed by mechanical wiping. Iridium-platinum alloy is much soften, then the stainless steel. Note that the etalon is manipulated without gloves. A poor prototype!
Yikes!
I hope those pictures of etalon cleaning are a joke. Tell me it's not true.
Some guy wiping it with an old rag!!! He isn't even wearing gloves!
Where is the sterile field? What does he do when the camera crew are not around.
Probably puts it in his pocket with his keys when he goes for lunch. Homer Simpson could do a better job.
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 16 2007, 02:29 AM)
Oh god.
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far. You'd think that I would be past being surprised by anything I saw on these forums.
You call that BS mate?
THIS is BS....
the difference is due to the clumpy uneven expansion of the universe. In addition to this Kilogram story, I point to Ukranian Scientists - Time - physorg
"The iridium standard meter rod will also have to become longer after some time."
and the pioneer anomaly
"Many hypotheses have been suggested: the interplanetary plasma and solar wind thermal recoil force due to heat from the spacecraft's nuclear power sources mysterious dark matter in the galaxy a manifestation of new physics.
No hypothesis could be adequately explained by known data..."
if the universe is expanding, it's interior is expanding as well as it's outer edge,
but the expansion is not wholly uniform, causing these "anomalies"
I can not believe some of the utter utter BS that has been spouted on this thread so far. You'd think that I would be past being surprised by anything I saw on these forums.
You call that BS mate?
THIS is BS....
the difference is due to the clumpy uneven expansion of the universe. In addition to this Kilogram story, I point to Ukranian Scientists - Time - physorg
"The iridium standard meter rod will also have to become longer after some time."
and the pioneer anomaly
"Many hypotheses have been suggested: the interplanetary plasma and solar wind thermal recoil force due to heat from the spacecraft's nuclear power sources mysterious dark matter in the galaxy a manifestation of new physics.
No hypothesis could be adequately explained by known data..."
if the universe is expanding, it's interior is expanding as well as it's outer edge,
but the expansion is not wholly uniform, causing these "anomalies"
QUOTE (STAGGERBOT+Sep 19 2007, 09:18 PM)
If the universe is expanding, it's interior is expanding as well as it's outer edge,
but the expansion is not wholly uniform, causing these "anomalies"
You know it would be nice if little gems like matter expanding over time didn't keep showing up!
OK it is fairly obvious the basis of this idea is that due to the universe expanding is that our measurements are getting bigger.
So matter is gaining size and loosing mass? By being gravitationally connected to dark energy our perception of expansion of our world contracts the measurements we make.
Why is science continuing to discover such strange things?
(Incidentally I am still looking on politely but we are living in some very strange times, at least someone could admit that).
I must admit this gets more amusing as it goes along.
What gets me is why wait 30 years?
Why not get a 300 meter bar and get a more accurate reading in just two months.
In fact why not get various bars say of titanium with a low specific density, iron (or nickle-iron) as a control and an iridium bar?
Now here is a clue if all the bars expand then we are in an expanding universe.
However, if the light bar shrinks, iron stays the same and the iridium bar expands then we are in a world contracting due to gravity expanding our measurements
Given that it is only the future of everything we know of perhaps it is not such a silly idea after all.
Hi Sentient Marine,
QUOTE (Sentient Marine+)
OK it is fairly obvious the basis of this idea is that due to the universe expanding is that our measurements are getting bigger.
So matter is gaining size and loosing mass? By being gravitationally connected to dark energy our perception of expansion of our world contracts the measurements we make. [..] Now here is a clue if all the bars expand then we are in an expanding universe.
However, if the light bar shrinks, iron stays the same and the iridium bar expands then we are in a world contracting due to gravity expanding our measurements
So matter is gaining size and loosing mass? By being gravitationally connected to dark energy our perception of expansion of our world contracts the measurements we make. [..] Now here is a clue if all the bars expand then we are in an expanding universe.
However, if the light bar shrinks, iron stays the same and the iridium bar expands then we are in a world contracting due to gravity expanding our measurements
These ideas will not work for the same reason why scaling up a full scale airplane powered by a rubber band does not work. The laws of physics change. You can get the idea by considering a large mass suspended by a cord of finite diameter. Scale everything up keeping all relative dimensions in the same ratio and eventually the cord will break. Another one is "the Blob" or "the Fly" or any such equivalent. The physical size limits what is possible as a physical process. If size increased and mass stayed the same then the density decreases reducing "strength" by increasing the distance over which forces must span thus weakening them, If size increased and mass proportionately increased then density stays the same but overall mass increases. Either way the physics changes and the system will behave differently. What we see is living systems on earth behaving in a very uniform way over the last couple of billion years at least. If we look to the stars the fusion reactions in them seem to be pretty much the same now as they were 12 billion years ago and we can get an idea of this by the spectra from stars that were burning that amount of time ago. Now some of this will be disputed (a little) but if I was a betting man (and I am not) I would say the distances between atoms spread out in the universe is increasing but the size (diameter) of individual atoms is not increasing. This would mean that electromagnetic forces dominate over gravitational forces so a platinum iridium bar is going to stay the same size and weight. There is an assumption and it is this system is totally isolated from the rest of the universe and the properties of particles are entirely independent of surrounding particles. At some level this assumption ... long standing as it is ... is wrong.
Assuming that the French have not made a horrible mistake in the manner that zephir has suggested... I am still plugging for quantum entanglement of properties causing the bar to become linked with the atoms of other particles in the vicinity. This means that some properties of atoms have a non-local component. These could be electromagnetic properties or gravitational properties. Either influence may affect "weight" under certain circumstances. This is possible according to recent demonstrated phenomena...
Physicists Establish 'Spooky' Quantum Communication
Cheers
Assuming that the French have not made a horrible mistake in the manner that zephir has suggested... I am still plugging for quantum entanglement of properties causing the bar to become linked with the atoms of other particles in the vicinity. This means that some properties of atoms have a non-local component. These could be electromagnetic properties or gravitational properties. Either influence may affect "weight" under certain circumstances. This is possible according to recent demonstrated phenomena...
Physicists Establish 'Spooky' Quantum Communication
QUOTE
... Scientists used light to establish what's called "entanglement" between two atoms, which were trapped a meter apart in separate enclosures (think of entangling like controlling the outcome of one coin flip with the outcome of a separate coin flip).
"This linkage between remote atoms could be the fundamental piece of a radically new quantum computer architecture," said Professor Christopher Monroe, the principal investigator who did this research while at U-M, but is now at the University of Maryland. "Now that the technique has been demonstrated, it should be possible to scale it up to networks of many interconnected components that will eventually be necessary for quantum information processing."
This is a laboratory controlled experiment and I suggest that a lot of "uncontrolled" entanglement is naturally occurring all of the time with the nearer objects as well as further objects. This does not break the laws of physics and it may explain why not all the standard masses are uniformly falling in mass as over zealous lab technicians polish them to a pretty bright mirror reflection. "This linkage between remote atoms could be the fundamental piece of a radically new quantum computer architecture," said Professor Christopher Monroe, the principal investigator who did this research while at U-M, but is now at the University of Maryland. "Now that the technique has been demonstrated, it should be possible to scale it up to networks of many interconnected components that will eventually be necessary for quantum information processing."
Cheers
Thank you for your reply Good Elf
I hadn't thought of the problems of scale. I wonder if the measurement exercise of the standard meter has ever been conducted in micro gravity?
The reasoning is if the universe is expanding then would a meter of titanium and of nickle-iron and iridium measured laid flat on earth be the same in space?
Perhaps that experiment has already been done. If not do you think it would be too bulky a test to consider?
Cheers
I hadn't thought of the problems of scale. I wonder if the measurement exercise of the standard meter has ever been conducted in micro gravity?
The reasoning is if the universe is expanding then would a meter of titanium and of nickle-iron and iridium measured laid flat on earth be the same in space?
Perhaps that experiment has already been done. If not do you think it would be too bulky a test to consider?
Cheers
Hi Sentient Marine,
Imaging Quantum Entanglement
If diamagnetic materials (and magnetic materials) get some of their (attractive/repulsive) forces from entanglement then some of the magnetism of materials depends on the entanglement with nearby materials which may be quantum entangled with them as referred to in the previous post...
Physicists Establish 'Spooky' Quantum Communication
http://www.physorg.com/news108217803.html (PhysOrg reference)
This controlled entanglement is occurring over a meter in distance between different atoms.
Natural entanglement could occur over meters or even kilometers (as noted in the article in the previous post). These result in "forces" that are "unbalanced". The Laboratory will be sitting on the surface of a "planet" with local variations in a number of influences which are "one sided", many of which have been assumed to have no influence at all. That was the thinking over 100 years ago. I think we should be more cautious about making that "assumption" today. It is clear that in the main these influences are subtle and small but they can be used to communicate over 100's of kilometers so they should be taken into greater account. Look at the strength of magnets and even diamagnets are weakly repulsive. A small nett effect could produce the tiny forces involved through "quantum non-locality".
Cheers
QUOTE
The reasoning is if the universe is expanding then would a meter of titanium and of nickle-iron and iridium measured laid flat on earth be the same in space?
Perhaps that experiment has already been done. If not do you think it would be too bulky a test to consider?
My guess is it probably does but I will bet that it is a very subtle effect that varies with time and the level of entanglement. . It should be possible to test even on the Earth. Already in some small way you could infer it from these experiments (I saw this one today) ....Perhaps that experiment has already been done. If not do you think it would be too bulky a test to consider?
Imaging Quantum Entanglement
If diamagnetic materials (and magnetic materials) get some of their (attractive/repulsive) forces from entanglement then some of the magnetism of materials depends on the entanglement with nearby materials which may be quantum entangled with them as referred to in the previous post...
Physicists Establish 'Spooky' Quantum Communication
http://www.physorg.com/news108217803.html (PhysOrg reference)
This controlled entanglement is occurring over a meter in distance between different atoms.
Natural entanglement could occur over meters or even kilometers (as noted in the article in the previous post). These result in "forces" that are "unbalanced". The Laboratory will be sitting on the surface of a "planet" with local variations in a number of influences which are "one sided", many of which have been assumed to have no influence at all. That was the thinking over 100 years ago. I think we should be more cautious about making that "assumption" today. It is clear that in the main these influences are subtle and small but they can be used to communicate over 100's of kilometers so they should be taken into greater account. Look at the strength of magnets and even diamagnets are weakly repulsive. A small nett effect could produce the tiny forces involved through "quantum non-locality".
Cheers
uh maybe careful though they may have been measurements of mass or Linear dimension 118 years ago weren't as accurate as they are today.
That is probably why they made 12 copies.
Did they have a digital scale in 1889?
No, they had a balance scale
50 Micrograms are small and the thickness equivalent of metal to equal the weight of a fingerprint is well so small it's nearly impossible to measure.
What a billionth of a meter?
Fingerprints are less dense than metal.
I don't know of a caliper in the late 1800's that could measure the thickness of a fingerprint let alone the equivalent thickness of metal.
Given the originals were made in the late 1800's I am very surprised and amazed that they got so close.
50 micrograms in 1889 is like pushing frontiers science and measurement to its limit.
Kudos to the french for getting so close with the technology of the time.
That is probably why they made 12 copies.
Did they have a digital scale in 1889?
No, they had a balance scale
50 Micrograms are small and the thickness equivalent of metal to equal the weight of a fingerprint is well so small it's nearly impossible to measure.
What a billionth of a meter?
Fingerprints are less dense than metal.
I don't know of a caliper in the late 1800's that could measure the thickness of a fingerprint let alone the equivalent thickness of metal.
Given the originals were made in the late 1800's I am very surprised and amazed that they got so close.
50 micrograms in 1889 is like pushing frontiers science and measurement to its limit.
Kudos to the french for getting so close with the technology of the time.
What about the position of the moon, sun, and every other particle out there?? Gravity basically reads as the net effect of attraction between all particles with mass or energy (read everything). So in theory if they measured its during the daytime with the moon out during the day the gravitic pull from the moon and the sun would ever so slightly make it (and you) lighter.
Then you also have to take into account that its possible that solar wind may have slightly reduced the amount of matter that makes up earths gravitic field. Every keeps saying that the solar wind is completely blocked by earths magnetosphere but I believe that we may be loosing some matter ever so slowly.. heck if by nothing else than by the amount of junk we send into space every year.
Then you have entropic decay of all matter on the planet.
Then you have the cleaning of the lump probably causeing the loss of atoms.
I believe the notion that everything changes. Do to the motion of all particles you, and any object you imagine will never have the same number of particles (atom or otherwise) from moment to moment. Given this idea and the idea that everything in the universe is moving constantly; the net effect of the force of gravity will always be changing and will probably be nearly impossible to truly measure but only give an extremely close approximation. Unless you are in that perfect spot in the universe where the net effect of gravity on you from every angle equals zero (ergo you are equally pulled in every direction). Even light in theory would have to change you as others were saying earlier.. Light bumping into the object would be transferring minute amounts of energy thereby changing ever so slightly the mass of the object.
Probably the only perfect definition for mass would be to find the smallest object in the galaxy that has gravitic attraction and measure the gravitic force between 2 of them at a defined distance. Does this sound right? (forget the possibility)
Then you also have to take into account that its possible that solar wind may have slightly reduced the amount of matter that makes up earths gravitic field. Every keeps saying that the solar wind is completely blocked by earths magnetosphere but I believe that we may be loosing some matter ever so slowly.. heck if by nothing else than by the amount of junk we send into space every year.
Then you have entropic decay of all matter on the planet.
Then you have the cleaning of the lump probably causeing the loss of atoms.
I believe the notion that everything changes. Do to the motion of all particles you, and any object you imagine will never have the same number of particles (atom or otherwise) from moment to moment. Given this idea and the idea that everything in the universe is moving constantly; the net effect of the force of gravity will always be changing and will probably be nearly impossible to truly measure but only give an extremely close approximation. Unless you are in that perfect spot in the universe where the net effect of gravity on you from every angle equals zero (ergo you are equally pulled in every direction). Even light in theory would have to change you as others were saying earlier.. Light bumping into the object would be transferring minute amounts of energy thereby changing ever so slightly the mass of the object.
Probably the only perfect definition for mass would be to find the smallest object in the galaxy that has gravitic attraction and measure the gravitic force between 2 of them at a defined distance. Does this sound right? (forget the possibility)
QUOTE (Sentient Marine+Sep 20 2007, 01:16 PM)
You know it would be nice if little gems like matter expanding over time didn't keep showing up!
OK it is fairly obvious the basis of this idea is that due to the universe expanding is that our measurements are getting bigger.
See this mass getting bigger thing is why the dinosaurs appear to have been so large! They were really small actually and just over time the fossils grew with the addition of this mysterious mass addition....a few million years and the 20lb brontosaurus now appears rather large indeed....
OK it is fairly obvious the basis of this idea is that due to the universe expanding is that our measurements are getting bigger.
See this mass getting bigger thing is why the dinosaurs appear to have been so large! They were really small actually and just over time the fossils grew with the addition of this mysterious mass addition....a few million years and the 20lb brontosaurus now appears rather large indeed....
QUOTE (AF JunkyW+Sep 29 2007, 08:41 AM)
What about the position of the moon, sun, and every other particle out there?? Gravity basically reads as the net effect of attraction between all particles with mass or energy (read everything).
Basically you are questioning about the very basics which I like. However, in this report the question is not about "gravity" but yet about "mass" itself.
So again, my claim is that this seems to be a VERY FUNDAMENTAL finding which might be for the first time (besides Pound-Rebka experiment for the photons) directly reveils the one of the most fundamental laws of Nature
m = m_0exp(-HeaM/r)
or in the differential form
dm/dr = mHeaM/r^2
which means all masses gravitationally radiate but following a dynamics which is totally outside of the both, Newton and GR paradigm. More than interesting is the fact that these 50 micrograms per kilogram (~E-8) are of the very similar order of magnitude (~E-9) with the Earth's HeaM/R; Hea = G/c^2. In a way it would be amazing that such a fundamnetal space-quantum gravity effect becomes known and measurable via the "old" mass etalon.
Again, you catch the most fundamental question - "mass" itself. Following your idea, that would be, e.g., to take into consideration the proton-electron system ("hydrogen") where we have m_e ~= 9.1E-31 kg and m_p ~= 1836 m_e. But question is: why the electron possesses this mass quantum exactly and why there is this 1836 ratio. Following one insight there is also a smaller amount of mass ("gravyphoton") in order of ~ E-69 kg. In fact, this value should be an amount of quantum of the above radiation. And now your measuring of "gravitic attraction" has to be in accordance with the the same above law not at all with more than limited Newton's idea of "force".
Welcome at "Wave Cosmodynamics"
Basically you are questioning about the very basics which I like. However, in this report the question is not about "gravity" but yet about "mass" itself.
So again, my claim is that this seems to be a VERY FUNDAMENTAL finding which might be for the first time (besides Pound-Rebka experiment for the photons) directly reveils the one of the most fundamental laws of Nature
m = m_0exp(-HeaM/r)
or in the differential form
dm/dr = mHeaM/r^2
which means all masses gravitationally radiate but following a dynamics which is totally outside of the both, Newton and GR paradigm. More than interesting is the fact that these 50 micrograms per kilogram (~E-8) are of the very similar order of magnitude (~E-9) with the Earth's HeaM/R; Hea = G/c^2. In a way it would be amazing that such a fundamnetal space-quantum gravity effect becomes known and measurable via the "old" mass etalon.
QUOTE
Probably the only perfect definition for mass would be to find the smallest object in the galaxy that has gravitic attraction and measure the gravitic force between 2 of them at a defined distance. Does this sound right?
Again, you catch the most fundamental question - "mass" itself. Following your idea, that would be, e.g., to take into consideration the proton-electron system ("hydrogen") where we have m_e ~= 9.1E-31 kg and m_p ~= 1836 m_e. But question is: why the electron possesses this mass quantum exactly and why there is this 1836 ratio. Following one insight there is also a smaller amount of mass ("gravyphoton") in order of ~ E-69 kg. In fact, this value should be an amount of quantum of the above radiation. And now your measuring of "gravitic attraction" has to be in accordance with the the same above law not at all with more than limited Newton's idea of "force".
Welcome at "Wave Cosmodynamics"
I was disappointed to return to this topic and see it has come to a hiatus. Sentient Marine and Good Elf had a great exchange, and many other interesting replies. Yet if the fundamental question here has been fully answered and an informal kind of consensus reached, I missed it. This issue-imho-raises some essential questions.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.