gravity and temperature

keepit wrote:Is there such a thing as gravitational energy and is it an influence on temperature?

keepit wrote:
Is there such a thing as gravitational energy and is it an influence on temperature?

Into the Night wrote:No. No. RQAA.

keepit wrote:
Is there such a thing as gravitational energy and is it an influence on temperature?

James___ wrote:Accepted theory is that the sun shines.

James___ wrote:With gravity, since compression (gravity, atmospheric pressure) is a constant,

James___ wrote:atmospheric gasses would remain at the same temperature.

James___ wrote: This in turn led to Svante Arrhenius saying CO2 in 1896.

James___ wrote: In some ways if what I know is right, hydrocarbons would still be an issue.

James___ wrote: With Fourier, he made an observation but did not give a specific reason as to why.

James___ wrote:That would be Arrhenius over 7 decades later. I think it has yet to be realized how our atmosphere actually works.

James___ wrote: While your friends in here accept that atmospheric air pressure is 1013.2 millibars (14.7 psi, 1.033 kgf/cm^2). I don't believe this.

James___ wrote:My onion is actually based on the history of science and what math supports.

keepit wrote:
See google

keepit wrote:
and wikipedia

keepit wrote:
to learn about gravitational energy.

gfm7175 wrote:Why can't YOU tell me anything about gravitational energy?

keepit wrote:
See google and wikipedia to learn about gravitational energy.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Why can't YOU tell me anything about gravitational energy?

keepit is a moron who doesn't see any difference between energy and forces and who cannot understand how creating new dollars somehow increases the number of dollars.

keepit needs others to do his thinking for him since he obviously cannot think for himself. His problem is that he cannot therefore think through who he should have do his thinking for him, so he ended up choosing who he was told to choose.

It sucks to be keepit.

.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:See google and wikipedia to learn about gravitational energy.

You shouldn't ask "real" Americans to do such complicated things.

keepit wrote:ibd, You're working too hard. Really.

keepit wrote:ibd, You're working too hard. Really.

gfm7175 wrote:Well said.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:See google and wikipedia to learn about gravitational energy.

You shouldn't ask "real" Americans to do such complicated things.

Just for laughs, I looked up keepit's Wikipedia reference and as most warmizombies do, he simply latched onto the title/heading and didn't feel any need to read beyond that.

The Wikipedia reference is titled "gravitational energy" but refers to potential energy per gravity, not that gravity is any sort of energy. I would be inclined to say that keepit totally misread the article except that I know that keepit simply didn't read the article in the first place.

James__, were you trying to credit keepit for being a physics genius?

.

BAROMETER. The mercury barometer had its origins in the investigations being made in Italy during the early seventeenth century to discover why it was impossible to build a suction pump to raise water higher than about thirty feet (10 m). Once it was found that the height attainable was related to the density of the liquid, the experimenters exchanged their cumbersome metal tubes filled with water for shorter glass tubes with the heaviest fluid available—mercury—which was mined in Tuscany.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/meteorological-instruments/barometers

James___ wrote:I got into a discussion with a guy on quora.com about gravity.

James___ wrote:He said that it had yet to be quantified.

James___ wrote:And some of the people who upvoted his question/comment had positions in the scientific community that required PhDs.

James___ wrote: A lot of depends on what aspect of gravity is being considered.

James___ wrote: With some of what keepit is asking about would actually allow for a discussion on how gravity can influence our atmosphere.

James___ wrote:This is actually what I'm pursuing and for people who haven't spent time working at it, it might actually be a steep learning curve.

James___ wrote:This goes back to my saying that the elements in atmospheric gasses probably become more excited when they bond with another element.

James___ wrote: Then from there the PKE a molecule has can conserve heat content.

James___ wrote:And that would increase the amount of heat it can release with each collision it has.

James___ wrote:I've spent so much time on this that it's pretty easy for me to confuse Force for Energy

James___ wrote:There are 2 things that I think help to heat the Earth's atmosphere but at the moment I haven't proved that why a science experiment was performed is what led to atmospheric air pressure being 14.7 psi.

James___ wrote: And if my understanding is correct about why they went from a 10m tall pipe to 30 hgs of Mercury, it will change atmospheric chemistry and physics.

BAROMETER. The mercury barometer had its origins in the investigations being made in Italy during the early seventeenth century to discover why it was impossible to build a suction pump to raise water higher than about thirty feet (10 m).

James___ wrote:Once it was found that the height attainable was related to the density of the liquid,

keepit wrote:
I guess one could complain that my post about gravitational energy was a semantics copout but i didn't say there was no such thing as gravitational energy. There's a big difference.

Up to 10–15 m deep approximately, ground heat is supplied by the sun
and rain. From there the underground temperature increases about 3º C per 100 m depth, due to the internal thermal energy of the Earth.

James___ wrote:... they might not have wanted to consider how much energy gravity has

James___ wrote: ... and that it actually contributes energy to the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:With the core of the Earth, it'd be hot like with a banked fire.

James___ wrote: I've eaten Ivermectin-glazed venison cooked that way before but am not sure about whether they performed proper indigenous sourcing.

James___ wrote: Inside the ground it will be really hot if you're close to the heat.

James___ wrote:Kind of like an element on a stove. Conduction works better.

James___ wrote: What shows gravity's effect in the ground is that the ground temperature rises at

James___ wrote: They might not be confused about this as I am.

James___ wrote: Someone once posted observations they made ...

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:... they might not have wanted to consider how much energy gravity has

Gravity is a force. It has no energy.

James___ wrote: ... and that it actually contributes energy to the atmosphere.

Gravity has no energy to contribute to the atmosphere.

James___ wrote:With gravity, it can't have force without energy.

James___ wrote:Otherwise its energy couldn't be conserved.

James___ wrote: The Moon is one example.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:With gravity, it can't have force without energy.

Incorrect. No force has any energy.

James___ wrote:Otherwise its energy couldn't be conserved.

No force has any energy to be conserved.

James___ wrote: The Moon is one example.

The moon is not an example of a force. The moon is an example of a body of matter.

How do you not know this?

.

keepit wrote:
See google and wikipedia to learn about gravitational energy.

keepit wrote:
I guess one could complain that my post about gravitational energy was a semantics copout but i didn't say there was no such thing as gravitational energy. There's a big difference.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
I guess one could complain that my post about gravitational energy was a semantics copout but i didn't say there was no such thing as gravitational energy. There's a big difference.

I think with them, they might not have wanted to consider how much energy gravity has and that it actually contributes energy to the atmosphere. With the core of the Earth, it'd be hot like with a banked fire.
That's where you get your coals going and then place what food you want to cook wrapped in aluminum foil on top of them. Then you bury them until the next day. I've eaten venison cooked that way before but am not sure about how they did everything. I had neighbors who hunted and I guess once a year that was something they liked to do.
Inside the ground it will be really hot if you're close to the heat. Kind of like an element on a stove. Conduction works better.
What shows gravity's effect in the ground is that the ground temperature rises at

Up to 10–15 m deep approximately, ground heat is supplied by the sun
and rain. From there the underground temperature increases about 3º C per 100 m depth, due to the internal thermal energy of the Earth.

They might not be familiar with this. Someone once posted observations they made at home in here. They monitored at maybe 1 ft above the ground and higher. It was cooler closer to the ground almost like the heat was being absorbed. Then again because dirt is denser it could absorb heat from the air.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:... they might not have wanted to consider how much energy gravity has

Gravity is a force. It has no energy.

James___ wrote: ... and that it actually contributes energy to the atmosphere.

Gravity has no energy to contribute to the atmosphere.

With gravity, it can't have force without energy. Otherwise its energy couldn't be conserved. The Moon is one example.

keepit wrote:
Gravitational energy is a potential energy.

keepit wrote:
Think of an apple in a tree as having potential energy and when the apple falls it gradually loses its potential energy until it hits the ground. The potential energy during this process is converted to kinetic energy which can be thermal energy and thereby raise the temperature of its surroundings.

keepit wrote:
It's kind of like a govt bond. A govt bond is potentially spendable and when it is cashed it then can be spent (kinetic). Regardless of which state a govt bond is in it has an effect on the dollar economy.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If gravity has no energy, what makes the gravity wheel spin perpetually? Work requires energy. No energy, no wheel spin.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.
https://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html

keepit wrote:
Gravitational energy is a potential energy. Think of an apple in a tree as having potential energy and when the apple falls it gradually loses its potential energy until it hits the ground. The potential energy during this process is converted to kinetic energy which can be thermal energy and thereby raise the temperature of its surroundings.

It's kind of like a govt bond. A govt bond is potentially spendable and when it is cashed it then can be spent (kinetic). Regardless of which state a govt bond is in it has an effect on the dollar economy.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gravitational energy is a potential energy. Think of an apple in a tree as having potential energy and when the apple falls it gradually loses its potential energy until it hits the ground. The potential energy during this process is converted to kinetic energy which can be thermal energy and thereby raise the temperature of its surroundings.

It's kind of like a govt bond. A govt bond is potentially spendable and when it is cashed it then can be spent (kinetic). Regardless of which state a govt bond is in it has an effect on the dollar economy.

How much energy did it take, to place the apple in the tree? Gravity acted on an object. The energy, is independent of the force acting on the object. The apple's energy came from the tree that produced it. Not the force of gravity, that acted on it.

Gravity doesn't act on specific parts of the 'wheel'. It acts on the entire 'wheel', all the time, independent of the energy used to preform the work of spinning it. You still have to provide equal energy to overcome the force of gravity, as any benefit of using gravity to spin a wheel. It's not free energy, or creation of energy.

keepit wrote:
Is there such a thing as gravitational energy and is it an influence on temperature?

James___ wrote: If it doesn't rotate more than 90º then it can't work IMO.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
If gravity has no energy, what makes the gravity wheel spin perpetually? Work requires energy. No energy, no wheel spin.

Because you're thou (singular) Harvey, when I demonstrate what I like to call the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, I'll become known. As you can now know, while heat is a flow of energy that is because it is "energy".

James___ wrote:
And with the Sun, the Earth, etc., gravity generates heat.

James___ wrote:
Otherwise the Earth would not become hotter as gravity increases.

James___ wrote:
And with what keepit mentioned,
you (plural) should know that if gravity has the potential to accelerate a given body or mass, then that body/mass has what is referred to as PKE (potential kinetic energy). If it accelerates because of energy then it will have KE (kinetic energy) which is 1/2mv^2 while force is ma. 2 different things. I think some of you guys need to learn the basics.
An example is a 1kg weight moving at 4 m/s. Then it's .5 x 1 x 4^2 = 8. That's its KE. It's force would be 1 kg x 4 = 4 newtons of force. The only way gravity can create energy is if it is energy just as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states.
Yep, just think, I might become known because I am aware of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and what it allows for.

James___ wrote:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

No, it doesn't. Heat is not energy.

James___ wrote:
and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy.

Heat is not conserved.

James___ wrote:
This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Heat is not energy. Heat is not conserved.

James___ wrote:
It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.

Heat is not transferred.

James___ wrote:
https://www.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gravitational energy is a potential energy. Think of an apple in a tree as having potential energy and when the apple falls it gradually loses its potential energy until it hits the ground. The potential energy during this process is converted to kinetic energy which can be thermal energy and thereby raise the temperature of its surroundings.

It's kind of like a govt bond. A govt bond is potentially spendable and when it is cashed it then can be spent (kinetic). Regardless of which state a govt bond is in it has an effect on the dollar economy.

How much energy did it take, to place the apple in the tree? Gravity acted on an object. The energy, is independent of the force acting on the object. The apple's energy came from the tree that produced it. Not the force of gravity, that acted on it.

Gravity doesn't act on specific parts of the 'wheel'. It acts on the entire 'wheel', all the time, independent of the energy used to preform the work of spinning it. You still have to provide equal energy to overcome the force of gravity, as any benefit of using gravity to spin a wheel. It's not free energy, or creation of energy.

This is where I've done the building and the testing while you haven't. In the next week or 2 I'll be doing the final test. If it doesn't rotate more than 90º then it can't work IMO. If it does rotate more than 90º then I've most likely realized Bessler's work. So if all goes well, it won't take much for me to finish the build. And it is a lot of work. Besides, as I mentioned, if successful I'll most likely become known because 99% of people would agree with you if not more.