-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravity vs Mass
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
No, science was first resistant to the notions of dark matter and energy, but was forced to accept them when conclusive evidence emerged.
Science doesn't assume. It follows the evidence.
Why? and what is "first?"
You're projecting your everyday experience on reality. Reality is counter-intuitive. To our everyday perception it makes no sense and appears impossible.
Yet it is.
Yes, of course.
Where were you in 8th grade science class?
What do you mean by the term 'substance'. That sounds Aristotelian, which is going to be a problem when trying to understand modern physics.
Gravity is a given whenever there is matter or energy. If there are 'substances' that don't have energy, then gravity may not be produced from them. I don't know of any, though.
Nothing outside of mathematics is proven. A great deal exists that can't be seen. Dark matter can be "observed" by its gravitational effects.
Do you have an alternate explanation?
Of what? perhaps an orbiter orbiting a very small asteroid?
Only if there are no other explanations...
Yes --This is hardly a new concept. This is middle-school science; very basic, like Newton's laws of motion.
Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
Of any known substance. Every substance we know of has mass and mass bends spacetime. Hypothetically there could be "exotic matter" (Exotic matter - Wikipedia) that is massless or has negative mass.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I had it pegged as atomic mass vs molecular mass.
Please explain atomic vs molecular mass.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I looked at how experts explain that....
What is the difference between atomic mass and molar mass? | Socratic
Atomic Mass and Molecular Mass: Definition, Calculation, Videos, Example
It's actually an interesting question as to why helium atoms would rise above oxygen atoms and molecules
You said molecular mass, not moles. Do you know what Avogadro's number is?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not exactly the most relevant aspect. Molecular mass determines the mass of a mole. Temperature and pressure determine the volume of a mole. The differences in mass in a given volume (the density) determines the buoyant force.
So, if you heat up air, it gets less dense and so the buoyant force is more. You need to heat it up a lot to get it down to the density of, say, helium, so helium will usually give more buoyant force than air.
Where atomic vs molecular masses come in is what constitutes a mole. So, oxygen atoms have a mass of 16 au, so 16 grams per mole. But oxygen *molecules* have two oxygen atoms, so they have a molecular mass of 32 au, or 32 grams per mole. Helium doesn't form molecules (it is chemically inert), but hydrogen does. So, while the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1 au, and that of helium is 4 au, *molecular* hydrogen is 2 au, so has half the density of helium (as opposed to one fourth for atomic hydrogen).
Heyo
Veteran Member
That theoretical process is known as Hawking radiation - Wikipedia. It is a quantum mechanical process (or rather two processes) that contradict GR.
The first process is theorized for micro Black Holes and involves Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia. Through the very exact position of a particle within the Black Hole, the momentum can, mathematically, be enough for the particle to escape.
The second occurs when a particle pair is generated through Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia near the Event horizon - Wikipedia and the massive particle escapes and the particle with negative mass falls into the Black Hole, subtracting from the overall mass.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes, science was, sort off, forced to accept dark matter when the ASSUMED universal laws of celestial motions around a gravity center was contradicted in galaxies. But instead of revising the laws, science ASSUMED dark matter "to hold the stars inside galaxies" because they otherwise would fly away from the galaxies because of the "abnormal motions".
Standard science failed to analyse the galactic formation and the motions of the stars, and they simply inserted an ASSUMED dark matter in order to fit the starry motions to their former and contradicted equations.
And, as this new ASSUMED dark invention again fits the old (contradicted) equations, they took dark matter to exist as a "conclusive evidence".
.
Of course cosmological science ASSUMES. This is the very basics in all science. They just call it "new theories".