Thread: New model of the universe ?

So if gravity makes pressure, pressure makes heat, and since hot bodies luminesce, creating light... then that means that gravity is creating light ?

If so, is the light created from gravity, therefore, free energy ?

Is light generated in stars, not only from stellar nucluesynthesis / atomic fusion, but also from pressure and the resultant luminescent hot gases?

If gravity acts as an input of free energy in this manner, apart from evaporation or Hawking radiation, do black holes continually build/gain energy ? How much?

Since there are models of particle decay and antiparticle annihilation, which create light... if the reverse were true, that particles could be formed from light, and if matter was being formed freely inside of black holes, how would this change the universe ?

If black holes were creating matter in such a manner, would that be detectable, since the black hole is gaining mass perhaps only minutely in proportion to the already existing mass ? I've heard that they are just full of sub-atomic degenerate gas and even pre-ons .

I used to think of stars as the creators of heavier elements and also thought of black holes as the great matter-to-energy converters, but with the " free energy input" model mentioned above, I tend to think the opposite is true now. It would follow, that stars are losing energy as light into space and acting as the de-constructors, while the black holes are the creators and re-capturers of energy.

I stand to be corrected...

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

So if gravity makes pressure, pressure makes heat, and since hot bodies luminesce, creating light... then that means that gravity is creating light ?

No, nuclear fusion is what makes the light in stars.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

If so, is the light created from gravity, therefore, free energy ?

Is light generated in stars, not only from stellar nucluesynthesis / atomic fusion, but also from pressure and the resultant luminescent hot gases?

Does the Earth glow? Does Jupiter?
Now, Jupiter does put out a very slight amount of radiation- but that is not "Free" energy created by gravity.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

If gravity acts as an input of free energy in this manner, apart from evaporation or Hawking radiation, do black holes continually build/gain energy ? How much?

Since there are models of particle decay and antiparticle annihilation, which create light... if the reverse were true, that particles could be formed from light, and if matter was being formed freely inside of black holes, how would this change the universe ?

Lalalalala la laaaaa

Oh, sorry, my mind wandered. Did I interupt your spewing of nonsense?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

If black holes were creating matter in such a manner, would that be detectable, since the black hole is gaining mass perhaps only minutely in proportion to the already existing mass ? I've heard that they are just full of sub-atomic degenerate gas and even pre-ons .

I used to think of stars as the creators of heavier elements and also thought of black holes as the great matter-to-energy converters, but with the " free energy input" model mentioned above, I tend to think the opposite is true now. It would follow, that stars are losing energy as light into space and acting as the de-constructors, while the black holes are the creators and re-capturers of energy.

I stand to be corrected...

Stand to be corrected?
You're laid out plastered on the ground begging for it.

How can you stand to be corrected when you made one bad assumption and then based a bunch of new assumptions on top of it?
The scientific Method does not involve inventing some bogus bullshit and then assuming you're correct until someone proves you wrong.

[QUOTE=Neverfly;10313]

"Does the Earth glow?


Yes, it does. Ever seen lava spew out of a volcano? The molten earth that comes out, it glows. In general, hot matter emits light. It's called incandescence. You can read about it here,

Incandescence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And... if all the Earth's heat energy came from the sun, how would you explain that the crust is cool and that the Earth gets hotter towards the center ?

Hey, you're partially right though. Light does come from nuclear fusion. But it also comes from hot matter.

Does it change the model of the universe ?

Well, I thought I'd let some other people up to bat and see what happens, but all I got was heckling from the crowd.

I think it does. It makes for a model in which the universe is possibly getting bigger or smaller, depending on the ratio of [ nuclear deconstruction and nuclear annilation ] compared to [ nuclear reconstruction plus nuclear creation ].

And then it goes back to the chicken and the egg philosophy. In a model where the universe is gaining chickens, that means that at some point in the past, there were fewer chickens. So if you go back far enough in time, you reach some critical point where there is not enough chickens to create chickens. So it really makes you wonder, whether the universe fluctuates between growth and decline like some kind of predator prey model. With a big bang, the universe expands, lets off some light, deconstructs and annihilates, the remainder gets pulled back together by gravity, matter reconstructs and recreates in a black hole, until the black hole goes bang. The cycle starts over again, with little bangs and crunches all over the place.

Well, I'm not a scientist by trade. You got me there. And I do rant... but that's only cause I'm online not so often as I'd like to be. So I just lay everything out. Likes sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives. Especially when you got a mind-numbing body aching factory job and feel like sitting and doing something a little intellectual after a long day.

and hey, speaking of assumptions, I can only have about two beers due to my acid reflux. And I don't do drugs, not that I don't want to, just can't anymore.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

...

"Does the Earth glow?

...

Everything glows. Everything radiates electromagnetic energy owing to its temperature. The intensity of energy radiated is given by:

where is the intensity (power per unit area), is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and is the absolute temperature. This is called Blackbody Radiation. This was one of the mysteries of 19th Century physics. Planck's solution to this problem gave birth to quantum mechanics. But, I digress....

Everything also absorbs electromagnetic energy. The intensity of energy absorbed is given by:

where is the intensity of energy absorbed and is the absolute temperature of the environment. This is Blackbody Absorption. The net energy transfer to an object is the difference between the energy radiated and energy absorbed.

This is the explanation of incandescence. Incandescent light bulbs and heat lamps behave this way. However, fluorescent bulbs, neon lights, lasers, radio antennae, and nuclear radiation sources are not thermal. They behave much differently.

Stars, including the Sun, are considered to be thermal sources. However, the totality of all of the stars in all of the galaxies as heat sources are somewhat like matches in Antarctica. They add some heat, but not much. The Universe has an average temperature of 2.725 K (–270.425 °C). The standard method used to create this temperature on Earth is to vacuum pump liquid helium. Thermal energy at this temperature gives rise to the cosmic background radiation. This is in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

As for the Earth's interior, the heat there is generated by the decay of radioactive species. To the vast majority of humans on the planet, the most important manifestation of this energy is that it establishes the frostline. The average temperature of the Earth is something like -16 °C. This temperature is due to the intensity of solar radiation on the planet. Greenhouse gases raise the surface temperature to an average of +15 °C. FWIW, a higher than average temperature on the surface does not change the overall average. Therefore, greenhouse gases lower the average temperature in the upper atmosphere to compensate for the higher average on the surface.

The takeaway message is that the Earth plays only a tiny role in producing the energy available on this planet. Most of the energy here is produced by the Sun. However, the Sun is just one little star in the Milky Way galaxy which is, in turn, just one of 200-400 billion galaxies in the Universe. As I said above, the energy production of all 200-400 billion galaxies raises the temperature of the Universe to just 2.725 K.

OK, yeah.

Jeffery, after all your obfuscating about whether or not the Earth 'glows' - It all comes down to what you said here:

If so, is the light created from gravity, therefore, free energy ?

Is light generated in stars, not only from stellar nucluesynthesis / atomic fusion, but also from pressure and the resultant luminescent hot gases?

That's why I asked that.

Picking it apart to point out the obvious is irrelevant. What you said was absolute nonsense and I used a low-brow example against it.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey DreamKing

If so, is the light created from gravity, therefore, free energy ?

Only until the Utility Companies figure out how to charge for it...

From Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).[78]"

And I understand, that from the Ideal Gas Law, that increasing pressure causes an increase in the temp, and when that pressure is released, the temp goes down. I'm not confusing pressure as an energy input.

When the liquid in the earth gets hot and rises and the cold liquid descends, because of the changing densities, a convection? current is formed. Now, when that heated liquid rises, it will rise until it gets to a spot of equal sorrounding density and also an area of less pressure, and then it will be cooled, both from the loss in pressure and the transfer of heat by thermal conduction takes place into the sorrounding material. With this rising and descending of material, there will be a little friction that will occur. I'd say, that energy from friction, is free energy. Also, whatever infrared and light being given off, that looks like free energy to me.

From Infrared - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat radiation", but light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[12] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. Objects at room temperature will emit radiation mostly concentrated in the 8 to 25 µm band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects (see black body and Wien's displacement law).[13]

Heat is energy in transient form that flows due to temperature difference. Unlike heat transmitted by thermal conduction or thermal convection, radiation can propagate through a vacuum.

The concept of emissivity is important in understanding the infrared emissions of objects. This is a property of a surface which describes how its thermal emissions deviate from the ideal of a black body. To further explain, two objects at the same physical temperature will not "appear" the same temperature in an infrared image if they have differing emissivities."

So from the first link, I'm being told that 80% of the Earth's heat is from radioactive decay and 20% is from planetary accretion. And then the second link says that 49% of the Earth's heat is from infrared with the rest ( 51 % ? ) being from visible light. It seems that these two links, are 'not on the same page' . I think the second link is referring to heat energy in the atmosphere. I'm still a little confused about what planetary accretion is. The link for 'planetary accretion' takes me to 'Gravitational binding energy', at Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,

where it states,

"The gravitational binding energy of an object consisting of loose material, held together by gravity alone, is the amount of energy required to pull all of the material apart, to infinity. It is also the amount of energy that is liberated (usually in the form of heat) during the accretion of such an object from material falling from infinity."

From Accretion disc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An accretion disc is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffuse material in orbital motion around a central body. The central body is typically a star. Gravity causes material in the disc to spiral inward towards the central body. Gravitational forces compress the material causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."

Okay, so for light not exitting a black hole, does that light shift backwards until it becomes stretched in wave length to nothingness or does the wave bounce back once it gets to the end of the string, so to speak, and then its wavelength gets condesced and it regains some energy ?

I guess what I'm asking, is what happens to light when it keeps getiing red-shifted ?

When you mention free energy, do you mean... well, I don't know what you mean. Why is the energy from friction free, but the heat energy in lava not free?

BTW, I linked to this discussion, from BAUT. There does seem to be some disagreements, in the literature: Roughly 50% of Earth's Internal Heat Generated by Radioactive Decay

Well, you could say that wind and solar is free energy if you ignored the costs of building the windmill or the solarpanel. Geo-thermal appears to be free heat from the earth to someone that doesn't know where the heat is coming from physic-ally. Free energy could be energy that is in transition like wind and solar or it could just be sitting there in the ground like oil or heat. Forms of energy have accumulated into concentrations, like the fruit of a tree that only needs to be harvested in some manner. I could say, "It's free for the picking". I'd have to buy a ladder of course. But relativley, the sunshine and the water are all free. Relatively, I could argure that the energy is free, it just costs money to harvest.

On the flip-side of the concept of 'free energy', would be the concept of 'energy loss'. My previous question about the continued red-shifting of light is really a question about the concept of energy loss.

There may be some exeptions to the conservation of energy. Theoretically, I tend to think that if stars are spread out far enough in space, that there is then a majority of empty space, then the light cast out from stars will mostly be traveling through space forever and ever without hitting any matter. Although space is not entirely empty, I think it would be easier to see the great loss of energy taking place IF the universe is finite. Then light would just be traveling forever into the nothing of space and that energy would be lost and never regained or conserved. Unless that light is gravitationally lensed or gets pulled back into the finite universe, it's gone.
Fortunately, I think there is enough hyrdrogen gas spread out in space to act as a fog. I think a great deal of light is recaptured, but since I truly don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite, I'll always wonder how much background radiation is just energy that forever is in transition and lost in space.

The question of free energy is closely related to the question of the creation of matter and whether the universe is finite or infinite.
Has it always been the same amount of energy, being recycled in bangs and crunches? Is there an infinite amount of space and a finite amount of energy and matter? What if the universe is infinite, and there is an infinite amount of energy and matter forever and ever ?
If you look at it that way, then that's like pulling on an infinitely long rope. You can keep pulling in more and more rope forever. If the room starts getting cold, it's not a problem because you have in infinite supply of rope to throw on the fire. If you need more heat energy, just pull in some more matter because it's just this endless resource and a form of free energy input.

So if I pretend I'm a black hole, and I just keep pulling in infinite amount's of this rope of matter and energy, then what going to happen? Black holes are said to decay after an incredibly long time due to hawking radiation, perhaps after such a long time that it's actually more likely that they will be able to pull in more matter at a rate faster than they are decaying. Eventually, I could get so massive that not even gamma rays could escape from the poles. What happens then ? Same thing that would happen if you sorrounded the sun with a perfect mirror, things would really begin to heat up. There would be an increasing amount of light, whatever matter that has not been transformed into light is probably turned into a heavier element by nucleo-synthesis. Or a degenerate gas of sub-atomics or pre-ons or whatever. I don't know. I'm not an nuclear physist. Eventually I think that black holes turn into big bangs, and this completes the 'circle of life' or unifyies the nature of the universe or whatever.

"Why is the energy from friction free, but the heat energy in lava not free?"

Energy from friction is really just mechanical or momentum of the two materials in contact being converted in heat. If the energy that set those two materials into motion is 'free', then the end resultant form of energy is 'free'. If you keep looking for the cause of the cause of the cause, and you find that there is free energy at the beginning, then the end is free also. If there is an infinite amount of energy and matter in an infinite universe at the foundation of everything, at the beginning, then the end is free as well.

You know, speak of the devil, I was just over at BAUT. I was alerted by email when a back-link was made to this thread, and I checked it out. I replied,

"Here something to think about.

I fill a glass of water. When I move the glass around in circles in front of me, the fluid in the glass begins to swirl. The glass is tidal locked to my hand.

If the Earth is moving around the sun, like a glass of water, then doesn't some heating occur simply from the friction of the swirling liquid against the inside of the container and from the pot being stirred ?

Yeah, I know the Earth's crust is spinning daily. But besides that...

I think this may be kind of like in monopoly, everytime the earth passes GO, it collects $200 in swirling free energy.

I guess the thing I should find out first, is when an object goes into orbit around another more massive central object, do those objects continue to 'face' each other, or does the orbiting object continue to remain faced in the direction that it was facing when it entered the orbit, and therefore appear to be rotating as it goes about the central gravitating body.

I know when I rotate a bucket of water in a circle, the bucket is going to keep facing me, but... if I were to do the same thing with a gymbal or gyroscope, I would think the inside would want to remain the way it is oriented. So is the earth like a gyroscope or a bucket of water ? "