Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

If E=mc^2 is true.....

Chaos88
Posts: 3,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.
I'm a broken man, and yet still breaking. Interact with caution.

The only good white person is a dead white person.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 6:10:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

That formula shows that mass and energy are equivalent, that a certain amount of mass will produce a certain amount of energy and vice versa..

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth?

Usually, removing or adding mass affects mass.

Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not really.

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 6:33:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy,

Well, you know, wind energy IS solar energy. The sun makes the wind. Almost everything already is solar energy, but pretty indirectly in the case of fossil fuels.

on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?


No, it's energy we're getting from the sun, not mass. The energy produces work (wind, or water evaporation, for instance), changes the form of earth's mass (like growing trees) and/or eventually gets radiated back out into space. E=mcc derives from turning mass into energy in a-bombs. Going the other way is even more extreme physics, not part of normal solar radiation.

So, no change in mass. But if we had enough windmills on enough hills to replace coal? I dunno, you gotta wonder if it could have some effect on weather or something. It would be ugly to look at, that's for sure!
This space for rent.
dee-em
Posts: 8,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 10:18:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:

I think I heard before it is not true, ...

It's true.

... but there is still the conservation of energy law,

It's actually conservation of mass/energy and it applies to any closed system including the universe itself.

I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

Well, all energy on Earth except nuclear ultimately comes from our own sun. That includes fossil fuels such as coal and oil (stored chemical energy from the sun millions of years ago), solar (sunlight) and wind power (the sun heating air and causing wind flow from high pressure to low pressure regions). The energy from the sun is generated through the equation in your thread title. Hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium and there is a slight loss of mass which is converted into energy. It's called a fusion reaction.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth?

Not really. The energy comes from the sun and does work but it is not converted back into matter. The Earth does gain mass very slowly though through meteorite bombardment if I remember correctly.

Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

The latter definitely not. The former would be negligible unless we really got serious with vast solar energy farms.

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Glad to help, or at least I hope I did.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
keithprosser
Posts: 4,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 8:40:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

When we 'harness' wind or wave energy we are not creating new energy, we are converting it from one form into another so in there is no change in total energy so there is no change of mass.

In the case of solar energy earth at equilibrium radiates back into space exactly the same amount of energy (as low grade infra-red heat) that it receives from the sun, so again there is no net change in energy so no change in mass.

However, if we start to absorb more solar energy (say by replacing reflective glaciers with absorbant solar cells) then the temporary imbalance causes the earth to increase in temperature until the balance of 'solar energy absorbed' matches 'infra-red energy radiated' once again. In that case their would be a change of mass because hot bodies weigh more than cold ones, but of course it is only by a very small amount.

Also the temperature change would only affect a thin surface layer of the earth not its deep interior which would further reduce the increase in mass involved. I suppose that if the earth's surface warmed up by 100 degrees centigrade then the change in earth mass might be almost detectable, but it would probably be the least of our worries!

Finally, colosal utilisation of wind and wave power would certainly have large effects on weather and climate. Cities have long been recognised as influencing local weather and climate by acting as 'hot spots'.
dee-em
Posts: 8,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 11:22:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 8:40:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

When we 'harness' wind or wave energy we are not creating new energy, we are converting it from one form into another so in there is no change in total energy so there is no change of mass.

In the case of solar energy earth at equilibrium radiates back into space exactly the same amount of energy (as low grade infra-red heat) that it receives from the sun, so again there is no net change in energy so no change in mass.

However, if we start to absorb more solar energy (say by replacing reflective glaciers with absorbant solar cells) then the temporary imbalance causes the earth to increase in temperature until the balance of 'solar energy absorbed' matches 'infra-red energy radiated' once again. In that case their would be a change of mass because hot bodies weigh more than cold ones, but of course it is only by a very small amount.

An incredibly small, dare I say insignificant, amount because of E=mc^2. A huge amount of extra energy would be needed to provide even a tiny increase in mass.

Also the temperature change would only affect a thin surface layer of the earth not its deep interior which would further reduce the increase in mass involved.

Huh? I fail to see how that follows. Energy is energy. It doesn't matter where it is in the Earth or how it is distributed.

I suppose that if the earth's surface warmed up by 100 degrees centigrade then the change in earth mass might be almost detectable, but it would probably be the least of our worries!

I agree with that! Even 10 degrees would be catastrophic.

Finally, colosal utilisation of wind and wave power would certainly have large effects on weather and climate. Cities have long been recognised as influencing local weather and climate by acting as 'hot spots'.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
keithprosser
Posts: 4,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 12:47:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 11:22:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/12/2017 8:40:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Also the temperature change would only affect a thin surface layer of the earth not its deep interior which would further reduce the increase in mass involved.

Huh? I fail to see how that follows. Energy is energy. It doesn't matter where it is in the Earth or how it is distributed.

Ah, but it takes much less heat (and hence energy) to increase the temperature of just the outer layers of the earth than to raise the temperature of the whole globe right down to the core by the same temperature. Most of the heat below the surface of the earth is derived from its hot core and radioactive decay (ie not from solar radiation) so a change in the radiation balance would have very little if any effect on the temperature of the earth's interior.

I'd guess that most of the temperature rise would be in air and the oceans so I imagine very little energy would be required to effect the increase of outgoing IR radiation required - I'm not in the mood to calculate the 'relativistic' mass involved in raising the oceans by,say, 1 degree is but it won't be much.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.
This space for rent.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 1:57:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.

Indeed, you drag it down quite a bit. Spreading not only misinformation about cosmology, but also relativity.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 1:59:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 12:47:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/12/2017 11:22:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/12/2017 8:40:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Also the temperature change would only affect a thin surface layer of the earth not its deep interior which would further reduce the increase in mass involved.

Huh? I fail to see how that follows. Energy is energy. It doesn't matter where it is in the Earth or how it is distributed.

Ah, but it takes much less heat (and hence energy) to increase the temperature of just the outer layers of the earth than to raise the temperature of the whole globe right down to the core by the same temperature. Most of the heat below the surface of the earth is derived from its hot core and radioactive decay (ie not from solar radiation) so a change in the radiation balance would have very little if any effect on the temperature of the earth's interior.

I'd guess that most of the temperature rise would be in air and the oceans so I imagine very little energy would be required to effect the increase of outgoing IR radiation required - I'm not in the mood to calculate the 'relativistic' mass involved in raising the oceans by,say, 1 degree is but it won't be much.

But the premise of climate change is that the balance is far more delicate than you suggest, right? And don't forget to distinguish between heat and temperature.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 2:04:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 1:57:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.

Indeed, you drag it down quite a bit. Spreading not only misinformation about cosmology, but also relativity.

Yeah, this is a classic, and I mean CLASSIC example of young skulls full of mush being taught a bunch of esoteric bleeding edge physics, but not knowing how a spring works.

Cuz, see, a spring that's compressed is later released. Everything adds up to zero, that's the basic principle of all practical science. And of course what you refer to is a minuscule effect anyway. Green energy is not going to change the mass of the earth, that's the correct answer here. Period.
This space for rent.
chui
Posts: 548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 2:10:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Every second the Sun losses 4 million tonnes of mass.

Not particularly relevant but an interesting fact.
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 2:14:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 2:04:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:57:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.

Indeed, you drag it down quite a bit. Spreading not only misinformation about cosmology, but also relativity.

Yeah, this is a classic, and I mean CLASSIC example of young skulls full of mush being taught a bunch of esoteric bleeding edge physics, but not knowing how a spring works.

Cuz, see, a spring that's compressed is later released. Everything adds up to zero, that's the basic principle of all practical science. And of course what you refer to is a minuscule effect anyway. Green energy is not going to change the mass of the earth, that's the correct answer here. Period.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct. Of course the effect is miniscule, I haven't denied that. The question however was whether adding energy to a system increases its mass, not whether this effect is noticeable.
It's quite funny how desperate you are to point at anything I say in the hope of me being wrong.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 2:34:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 2:14:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:04:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:57:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.

Indeed, you drag it down quite a bit. Spreading not only misinformation about cosmology, but also relativity.

Yeah, this is a classic, and I mean CLASSIC example of young skulls full of mush being taught a bunch of esoteric bleeding edge physics, but not knowing how a spring works.

Cuz, see, a spring that's compressed is later released. Everything adds up to zero, that's the basic principle of all practical science. And of course what you refer to is a minuscule effect anyway. Green energy is not going to change the mass of the earth, that's the correct answer here. Period.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct.

Yes, I came on to you too hard, sorry. But no, you're not correct, in the context of the question. And the larger context, that's really the elephant in the room whenever atheists talk to me: No amount of esoteric bleeding edge physics can make God unnecessary. That's what we're always arguing about. You can say that the singularity is the thing that "just is" if you like. I just recognize that the first cause must also have personality, because personality is what life is REALLY all about. The ache for glory is why we have these testosterone laced pissing contests. So the spirit realm is what it's really all about, and we can argue physics until the sun burns out and it will, at the end of cosmos, have been pretty irrelevant.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 3:41:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 2:34:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:14:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:04:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:57:24 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 1:04:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:59:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think I heard before it is not true, but there is still the conservation of energy law, I have always wondered how this applies to green technologies.

For example, if we were to harness the solar and wind energy, on a colossal scale, would that affect the mass of the earth? Would it affect wind patterns or solar radiation?

Not a big physics guy, so I'm hoping I can get a solid answer on this.

Yes, adding energy to a system increases its mass. A compressed spring is more massive than a relaxed one.

lol. Yeah, the last place to ask a serious technical question is on debate.com science forum.

Indeed, you drag it down quite a bit. Spreading not only misinformation about cosmology, but also relativity.

Yeah, this is a classic, and I mean CLASSIC example of young skulls full of mush being taught a bunch of esoteric bleeding edge physics, but not knowing how a spring works.

Cuz, see, a spring that's compressed is later released. Everything adds up to zero, that's the basic principle of all practical science. And of course what you refer to is a minuscule effect anyway. Green energy is not going to change the mass of the earth, that's the correct answer here. Period.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct.

Yes, I came on to you too hard, sorry. But no, you're not correct, in the context of the question. And the larger context, that's really the elephant in the room whenever atheists talk to me: No amount of esoteric bleeding edge physics can make God unnecessary. That's what we're always arguing about. You can say that the singularity is the thing that "just is" if you like. I just recognize that the first cause must also have personality, because personality is what life is REALLY all about. The ache for glory is why we have these testosterone laced pissing contests. So the spirit realm is what it's really all about, and we can argue physics until the sun burns out and it will, at the end of cosmos, have been pretty irrelevant.

Wow, you'll troll any thread in the Science forum in order to get your God agenda shoved in our faces.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 3:58:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/11/2017 10:18:51 AM, dee-em wrote:

Well, all energy on Earth except nuclear ultimately comes from our own sun.

You're forgetting the residual heat energy from meteorite impacts. Geothermal energy taps into these...
AKA
Rob1billion
Rob1_Billion
Caramel
Lasagna
Annnaxim
Posts: 435
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 3:58:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 2:10:50 PM, chui wrote:
Every second the Sun losses 4 million tonnes of mass.

Not particularly relevant but an interesting fact.
Oh, but it's very relevant, in that it is a direct result of E =mc^2
v3nesl
Posts: 6,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:23:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 3:58:50 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:10:50 PM, chui wrote:
Every second the Sun losses 4 million tonnes of mass.

Not particularly relevant but an interesting fact.
Oh, but it's very relevant, in that it is a direct result of E =mc^2

I imagine he means, not relevant to the green energy question.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 4,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:38:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 3:58:50 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:10:50 PM, chui wrote:
Every second the Sun losses 4 million tonnes of mass.

Not particularly relevant but an interesting fact.
Oh, but it's very relevant, in that it is a direct result of E =mc^2

Speaking of irrelevent and uninteresting facts:

Mass of earth's oceans c. 1.4e21 kg
Specific heat of water 4186 j/k/kg
ergo heat required to warm oceans by 1 deg is about 5.8e24 J.
mass equivalent (m=e/c^2, 5.84e24/(3e8*3.e8) is about 6.5e7 Kg.
That's about 65 million kg! But as a fraction of earth mass (5.972 " 10^24 kg) its
nearly a whopping 1 part in a billion billion. (1e-17).

I am of course open to correction! :)
dee-em
Posts: 8,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 11:18:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 12:47:30 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/12/2017 11:22:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/12/2017 8:40:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Also the temperature change would only affect a thin surface layer of the earth not its deep interior which would further reduce the increase in mass involved.

Huh? I fail to see how that follows. Energy is energy. It doesn't matter where it is in the Earth or how it is distributed.

Ah, but it takes much less heat (and hence energy) to increase the temperature of just the outer layers of the earth than to raise the temperature of the whole globe right down to the core by the same temperature. Most of the heat below the surface of the earth is derived from its hot core and radioactive decay (ie not from solar radiation) so a change in the radiation balance would have very little if any effect on the temperature of the earth's interior.

I agree but that is not what puzzled me about your previous post. It was the "would further reduce the increase in mass involved" which I could not understand. I don't see how that follows. Whatever mass effect an increase in temperature on the surface had would be independent of whether the core heated up as well.

I'd guess that most of the temperature rise would be in air and the oceans so I imagine very little energy would be required to effect the increase of outgoing IR radiation required - I'm not in the mood to calculate the 'relativistic' mass involved in raising the oceans by,say, 1 degree is but it won't be much.

Hardly measurable would be my guess. In fact the increase in mass via regular meteorite bombardment would swamp it out.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
dee-em
Posts: 8,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 11:23:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 3:58:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/11/2017 10:18:51 AM, dee-em wrote:

Well, all energy on Earth except nuclear ultimately comes from our own sun.

You're forgetting the residual heat energy from meteorite impacts. Geothermal energy taps into these...

Good point. Some of that energy would have been retained for the more massive collisions at least.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
chui
Posts: 548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2017 1:50:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/12/2017 11:23:29 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/12/2017 3:58:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/11/2017 10:18:51 AM, dee-em wrote:

Well, all energy on Earth except nuclear ultimately comes from our own sun.

You're forgetting the residual heat energy from meteorite impacts. Geothermal energy taps into these...

Good point. Some of that energy would have been retained for the more massive collisions at least.

Geothermal energy is due to radioactivity in the core. Meteor impact was proposed by Rutherford I think, but it does not explain the quantity of heat generated that keeps the core and inner mantle liquid.

Tidal energy is also not directly Sun related.
Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
dee-em
Posts: 8,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2017 10:28:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 1/13/2017 1:50:44 PM, chui wrote:
At 1/12/2017 11:23:29 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 1/12/2017 3:58:02 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/11/2017 10:18:51 AM, dee-em wrote:

Well, all energy on Earth except nuclear ultimately comes from our own sun.

You're forgetting the residual heat energy from meteorite impacts. Geothermal energy taps into these...

Good point. Some of that energy would have been retained for the more massive collisions at least.

Geothermal energy is due to radioactivity in the core. Meteor impact was proposed by Rutherford I think, but it does not explain the quantity of heat generated that keeps the core and inner mantle liquid.

I know that. I am assuming that Rob was talking about a contributing source such as the dinosaur killer meteor. Some fraction of that energy must have been absorbed into the core. I don't dispute that it is likely to be insignificant compared to the existing heat from radioactivity.

Tidal energy is also not directly Sun related.

Another good point.
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.