global warming, an interesting perspective

[Cruentus]

In fact, here is the home page of a very interesting website on the subject:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

 

[Ray]

The mass of an object does not change because of its relative position to another object. If Venus was anywhere else in the universe, it would have exactly the same mass as it has in orbit around the Sun.

The "where" of an object might not change its mass relative to another object but the relative speed of the object to another may change its mass. Of course, it would have to be moving along at a high velocity and its "where" would be constantly changing.

On the subject of global warming: How come the doomsaying scientists and political leaders don't ride their bikes to their conventions? How come Al Gore doesn't jog to his "events?"

 

[michaeledward]

The "where" of an object might not change its mass relative to another object but the relative speed of the object to another may change its mass. Of course, it would have to be moving along at a high velocity and its "where" would be constantly changing.

Mass is not relative to any other thing, so I don't quite understand what you are arguing.

The mass of Venus is the equal to itself. It would be equal to itself where ever it is in the universe and no regardless of what objects it is near, away from, moving toward or moving away. Mass is the measure of how much 'stuff' makes up the planet Venus.

So, if you can shed some light on more specifically what you are referencing, I am interested.

On the subject of global warming: How come the doomsaying scientists and political leaders don't ride their bikes to their conventions? How come Al Gore doesn't jog to his "events?"

And this does not seem to be a serious question, just an attempt to slur the conversation. I could be wrong though. Please tell me which 'doomsaying scientist' you are refering to? Because most scientists that I am familiar with are not sayers of doom. Usually, they leave that to religious types. Doom is a concept outside of science.

 

[crushing]

Climate change and its effects has even become one of the factors for at what time a group of scientists set their Dooms-day clock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6270871.stm

 

[Xue Sheng]

What was intended as a gentle correction of an error results in an accusation and insult. OK then ... so here is the language.....

Whether we agree or not, is pretty irrelevant at this point, isn't it? When you seem to wish to paint me with the radical right code word 'Al Gore'. The only reference in this thread to Al Gore is your post.

In an effort to not hijack the thread I will post my reply to you here, since this thread was dedicated to you it is the best place to respond to you.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38148&page=2

I will ask this again though, since you like to pick and choose what you answer and not answer direct questions.

This is the original post.

I heard something interesting on the radio the other day, thought I'd bounce it around a bit. I wish I could remember who said it.

It was an interesting perspective I've not heard before on things. Who says that the temperature we now have on Earth is ideal? Temperatures in the past have flucuated dramatically, long before man made his grand appearance. Things like solar cycles, volcanic activity have led to dramatic temperature ranges. Ice ages, long periods of warmer temperatures, etc.. Sea levels have not been static either. Why are we trying to halt the rise or fall of global temperatures?


I can understand our desire to slow down polution. That only makes sense. But even with no polution, we don't live in a world with static temperatures. Should that be our motivation to try and clean things up? Also, why should we see ourselves as the ultimate judges of what the "correct" temperature is? If we enter a new ice age in 50 years, should we start producing more green house gasses?

How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?

 

[Cruentus]

How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?

Xue,

If you are honestly looking for an answer to this question, I linked a pretty nice article that discusses how comparing earth to planets like Venus and Mars does apply to this post.

If you are only looking to feud with Micheal Edward, then...eh...sorry for interupting? :idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

How does comparing Earth to Venus apply to that post?

I thought this had been addressed clearly and concisely. As I understand the argument put forth in the initial post, the question is...

• So what if human impact is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of planet Earth?
• What's to say that human impact that results in planet Earth to retain more heat energy is bad?
• What's so bad about increase the amount of human caused greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?

I believe I answered that question in the second post on this thread. As a demonstration point, I suggested we look to what happens to a planet in which the atmosphere contains high levels of greenhouse gases. Venus has more greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than does Earth. By comparing the two atmospheres, we can draw insight to the impact of our involvement here on our planet.

I believe the quantity of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere is directly relevant to this discussion.

Do you think it is not?

If so, why is it not relevant?

 

[Flatlander]

Mass is not relative to any other thing, so I don't quite understand what you are arguing.

The mass of Venus is the equal to itself. It would be equal to itself where ever it is in the universe and no regardless of what objects it is near, away from, moving toward or moving away. Mass is the measure of how much 'stuff' makes up the planet Venus.

So, if you can shed some light on more specifically what you are referencing, I am interested.

Here's one quick reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

And another: http://psi.phys.wits.ac.za/teaching/Connell/phys284/2005/lecture-01/lecture_01/node14.html

Length is relative to velocity as well.

Regarding mass, it's most precisely described as a measure of inertia, from F = m a ; m = F/a, which is to say that 1 kilogram is equal to 1 newton metre per second per second.

 

[michaeledward]

Thank you.

I am unfamiliar with the term 'relativistic mass'. I assume when Ray mentioned high velocities, he was refering to velocities approaching the speed of light. Of course, at relativistic speeds, in general all hell breaks loose.

From the first post

Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass. The symbol m for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity. Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass is wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass. For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass.

So, I hope I don't overstep my case when I say, again, that mass is mass. The mass of an object is the same, no matter where the object is in relation to other objects.

Mass does not equal volume. Mass does not equal weight. Mass does not equal density. Although mass does contain each of these attributes; volume, weight (in a gravitational field) and density. I will grant that at the speed of light, these statements are subject to some variation.

This fact does not require taking sides. It is not, in any way, a philosophic discussion.

Thank you, Flatlander. I learned something new today. It is a good day.

 

[mrhnau]

Until you get somewhat close to the speed of light, the effects of relativity are not too significant. Say around 1/10th or so... Still, even at slower speeds, the effects are there, but I'd not expect to see them play all that much of an important role.