| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » Temperature gradient inside a body with gravity
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Jonsson |
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For the geological or any astronomical body the gravity potential has
to be taken into consideration when determining the temperature
gradient inside the body .
This is an easy description of how gravity affects the geothermal heat
gradient.
Consider a small part of the geological body as consisting of even
smaller particles moving around and colliding due to their thermal
energy. When the heated particles moves up in the gravity potential it
looses speed and thus thermal energy. If it moves down it's speed
increases and temperature rises. This is a cause for temperature
gradients in bodies big enough to have noticeable gravitation. This
temperature gradient can not cause heat conduction. When determining
the heat conduction through the earth's crust the effect of the
gravitational heat gradient has to be considered. Let us calculate how
big the non conducting gravitational heat gradient is.
The shift in the thermal energy of the particles moving height $B&$(Bh in
gravity field will be equal to the shift in thermal energy
$B&Q(B g $B&$(Bh = $B&Q(B c $B&$(BT
g $B&$(Bh = c $B&$(BT
$B"`(BT = $B&$(BT / $B&$(Bh = g / c = 9.81 m/s^2 / ( 800 J/kg/K ) = 0.012 K / m = 12
K / km
This is half of the measured value 25 K / km. Thus the heat transfer
from the interior of the Earth should be taken as only half of the
value incorrectly calculated without the gravitational heat gradient.
This is important in determining global warming.
There is an easy way to experimentally test if the heat gradient in a
volume of the Earth is dominantly gravitational or conductive. If the
heat gradient depends mostly on specific heat capacity then the it is
mostly gravitational. If it depends mostly on thermal conductivity
then the heat gradient is mostly of conducting nature.
Specific heat c in the earth crust = 800 J/kg/K is taken from
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/explosion.html
Geothermal gradient measured to be 25 K / km according to
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth&Space/GPS/earthinterior.html
or 20 K / km or more according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
David Jonsson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For the geological or any astronomical body the gravity potential has
to be taken into consideration when determining the temperature
gradient inside the body .
This is an easy description of how gravity affects the geothermal heat
gradient.
Consider a small part of the geological body as consisting of even
smaller particles moving around and colliding due to their thermal
energy. When the heated particles moves up in the gravity potential it
looses speed and thus thermal energy. If it moves down it's speed
increases and temperature rises. This is a cause for temperature
gradients in bodies big enough to have noticeable gravitation. This
temperature gradient can not cause heat conduction. When determining
the heat conduction through the earth's crust the effect of the
gravitational heat gradient has to be considered. Let us calculate how
big the non conducting gravitational heat gradient is.
The shift in the potential energy of the particles moving height $B&$(Bh in
gravity field will be equal to the shift in thermal energy
$B&Q(B g $B&$(Bh = $B&Q(B c $B&$(BT
g $B&$(Bh = c $B&$(BT
$B"`(BT = $B&$(BT / $B&$(Bh = g / c = 9.81 m/s^2 / ( 800 J/kg/K ) = 0.012 K / m = 12
K / km
This is half of the measured value 25 K / km. Thus the heat transfer
from the interior of the Earth should be taken as only half of the
value incorrectly calculated without the gravitational heat gradient.
This is important in determining global warming.
There is an easy way to experimentally test if the heat gradient in a
volume of the Earth is dominantly gravitational or conductive. If the
heat gradient depends mostly on specific heat capacity then the it is
mostly gravitational. If it depends mostly on thermal conductivity
then the heat gradient is mostly of conducting nature.
Specific heat c in the earth crust = 800 J/kg/K is taken from
http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/explosion.html
Geothermal gradient measured to be 25 K / km according to
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth&Space/GPS/earthinterior.html
or 20 K / km or more according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
David Jonsson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper |
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
And this is supposed to be significant how?
You are working on averages, not temperature gradients at specific
locations. Temp gradients under Yellowstone NP, USA, for example,
greatly exceed the 'average' number. The temp gradient beneath other
places doesn't even reach the 20-25 K/km you cite.
If you are trying to draw some data to justify/deny global warming, it
doesn't strike me that earth's gravitational heat gradient (as you call
it) is anything people can influence without reducing the mass of the
planet. Therefore, it should be considered an overall constant, not a
controllable variable for total heat in the system. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net>
wrote:
Quote: And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
Quote: You are working on averages, not temperature gradients at specific
locations. Temp gradients under Yellowstone NP, USA, for example,
greatly exceed the 'average' number. The temp gradient beneath other
places doesn't even reach the 20-25 K/km you cite.
I use the global average in the crust.
Check what the specific heat and the thermal coductivity is of that
rock and we can see how much the gravitational and the heat conducting
thermal gradient is.
Quote: If you are trying to draw some data to justify/deny global warming, it
doesn't strike me that earth's gravitational heat gradient (as you call
it) is anything people can influence without reducing the mass of the
planet. Therefore, it should be considered an overall constant, not a
controllable variable for total heat in the system.
It can be controlled by adjusting the specific heat of the material it
is is. This is ofcourse also hard.
In fact we have a lot of heat in the earth interior without fusion or
heat left over from ancient times. The same is for the sun and the
planets. The sun and the gas planets would be worth investigating.
They probably are already since an similar theory is applied to
fluids, the lapse rate. It must apply to solids as well.
On the discussion page on Wikipedia's article on athmosperic lapse
rate they have the same equation 3.2 (in the German version)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperaturgradient_%28Meteorologie%29
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper |
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm still waiting for some sort of conclusion that you're trying to draw
with your data. Two factors which your are not taking into consideration
nor the heat of various chemical reactions, nor the heat generated by
natural radioactivity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 30, 5:30 am, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net>
wrote:
Quote: I'm still waiting for some sort of conclusion that you're trying to draw
with your data. Two factors which your are not taking into consideration
nor the heat of various chemical reactions, nor the heat generated by
natural radioactivity.
I mentioned the missing term. Every other context mentioning the
geothermal gradient mentions heat sources. Heat sources should be
halved and that is very significant.
Geothermal adiabatic lapse rate could be a more suitable term for the
effect since that term is used for the same effect in the atmosphere.
It is not a perfect term since gravity is doing work on the material.
What does this mean for the so often mentioned global heating? If the
heating from the interior of the earth is halved maybe there is no
global heating. I want someone to investigate global heating again
considering this effect. Alternatively, if the global heating is
determined by other means halving the contribution from the interior
of the earth means that the heating is even bigger.
A third option is to investigate if the atmospheric heat gradient is
changed with more carbon dioxide. Global heating doesn't necessarily
have to do with heating. It can be due to an altered non conducting
heat gradient.
As far as I have investigated this it seems that there is no good
understanding of heat sources inside Earth and the same seems to be
the case for the Sun and the big gas planets. Radioactivity is
something people refer to to make it all look as if it is in balance.
Lapse rate in the Sun has been mentioned but I don't know to which
degree. Maybe the missing neutrino flux from the Sun can be explained
by the fact that the heat gradient in the Sun isn't all conducting
heat which would require less heat sources and less nuclear reactions
in the sun.
Why lapse rate isn't considered in solid matter compared to gases and
fluids is that heat is distributed and altered in different ways.
There is a lot to investigate and I don't seem to have the time now.
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
That measured gradients differs from your expected adiabat has nothing
to do with global warming. The crust contains radiogenic heat sources
and the earth's interior is convecting are just two things that render
your conclusions baseless.
Stuart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| don findlay |
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart wrote:
Quote: That measured gradients differs from your expected adiabat has nothing
to do with global warming. The crust contains radiogenic heat sources
and the earth's interior is convecting are just two things that render
your conclusions baseless.
Stuart
("...and the Earth's interior is convecting..." ) That's the
convection driven by subduction due to the sinking oceanic slab
(sinking because the continental lithosphere is forcing it down), ...
- that right, Stuart, eh? ... convection is driven by the sinking
slab being forced down by the continental lithosphere? You might as
well say that the continental lithosphere, just by being there, is
driving convection.
(Up against the ropes and yelling "Hit me, ..Hit me, ...Hit me with
your rythm stick!") ( You really are a mug for punishment, you know.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Quote: That measured gradients differs from your expected adiabat has nothing
to do with global warming. The crust contains radiogenic heat sources
and the earth's interior is convecting are just two things that render
your conclusions baseless.
Show this. What is the equation for heat conduction through the Earth
crust? It is not simply the measured heat gradient multiplied with the
measured heat conduction coefficient. That false equation is used to
determine the heat sources in the globe. Still half the effect is
there so there could still be heat sources and convecting interior.
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Show what? Truth be told, I only assumed you were trying in some
odd way to compute the adiabatic gradient.
You're equating the work done on moving a block of matter
in a gravitational field with an equivalent change of heat in the
block.
I don't see why the heat content of the block should change at all.
The work
done on the block in rasing or lowering it, changes its gravipotential
energy, not its heat content or temperature.
Now if that block is under pressure due to the overburden of other
matter in
a gravitational field... different story. Essentially if you have an
adiabatic gradient,
displacing matter up and down, it will still have the same temperature
as its surroundings.
Its not the simply moving up or down, but the change in pressure that
causes matter
in this scenario to change temperature.
You should Google Adams-Williamson equation and adiabatic temperature
gradient.
Quote:
That measured gradients differs from your expected adiabat has nothing
to do with global warming. The crust contains radiogenic heat sources
and the earth's interior is convecting are just two things that render
your conclusions baseless.
Show this. What is the equation for heat conduction through the Earth
crust? It is not simply the measured heat gradient multiplied with the
measured heat conduction coefficient.
Yeah, but the measured heat gradient will be influenced by the
presence of heat sources,
that are not taken into account in your simple expression.
Your expression is simply not useful for this purpose.
Stuart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 13, 4:34 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Show what? Truth be told, I only assumed you were trying in some
odd way to compute the adiabatic gradient.
My way is very intuitive. Heat is motion. If moving upwards the motion
decelerate due to gravity. If moving downwards it accelerates. This
means there is a heat gradient.
As you see above in the references to Wikipedia there are different
ways to acheive the "adiabatic" gradient so I was asking you to show
and refer to the one you use.
Quote: You're equating the work done on moving a block of matter
in a gravitational field with an equivalent change of heat in the
block.
If there is heat in the block then the parts of the block are moving.
When they move upwards they loose speed and thus temperature and when
they move downwards they gain speed and thus temperature.
Quote: I don't see why the heat content of the block should change at all.
The work
done on the block in rasing or lowering it, changes its gravipotential
energy, not its heat content or temperature.
It does not change spatially as seen from itself as a reference frame.
Quote: Now if that block is under pressure due to the overburden of other
matter in
a gravitational field... different story. Essentially if you have an
adiabatic gradient,
displacing matter up and down, it will still have the same temperature
as its surroundings.
No, then you are not using kinetic theory of heat. Any kinetic theory
of heat will have a gradient in an accelerating field like gravity.
Quote: Its not the simply moving up or down, but the change in pressure that
causes matter in this scenario to change temperature.
That could also have an effect. I have calculated that for air (arXiv)
and water (IWONE 2007) but never for a solid. The only difference for
a solid compared to a fluid would be to use the Young modulus instead
of the bulk modulus but that doesn't seem to be used in geology which
leads to the same expression as for a fluid
thermal volume expansion  = 1/V ∂V/∂T
bulk modulus K = −V ∂p/∂V
leads to
∂p/∂T = K (1)
or
∂p = K ∂T (2)
The volumetric force f = - ∇ p in combination with (2) leads to
f = - ∇ p = - ∂p/∂r = - K ∂T/∂r (3)
In acceleration fields with Newton's law F=ma per volume and with
acceleration g
f = g (4)
We now have sufficient data to determine the thermal gradient ∂T/∂r by
combining (3) and (4)
∇T = ∂T/∂r = - g/K
For the crust, granite, it becomes
 = 2700 kg/m^3
g = 9.81 m/s^2
K = 44 GPa
 = 0.0000085 /K
∇T = ∂T/∂r = - g/K = - 2700 * 9.81/44000000000/0.0000085 = - 0.070 K/
m = - 70 K/km
This figure is 2-3 times more than observed. This calculation actually
shows the required heat gradient to maintain constant density and
volume regardless of depth. Since the volume is decreasing with
increased depth (?) the heat gradient will be smaller.
Quote: You should Google Adams-Williamson equation and adiabatic temperature
gradient.
I have looked a lot for the adiabatic temperature gradient before.
Adams-Williamson (AW) equation I checked first time today and found
http://rses.anu.edu.au/~hrvoje/PHYS3070/Lecture9.ppt
d/dr = -^2Gm/r^2/K
I can't see how they can use that equation since the value would
depend on the temperature and thus the heat gradient.
What is the accepted value of AW for the crust? I would say there are
additional terms for d/dr which depend on temperature. Alternatively
the AW value fore volume density change could be used in aboves method
to determine the crust heat gradient.
I have found these documents which seems to cover the subject
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/geol388/pdf_files/density.pdf
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/C365/cd/C365/docs/lecture1.htm
Quote: That measured gradients differs from your expected adiabat has nothing
to do with global warming. The crust contains radiogenic heat sources
and the earth's interior is convecting are just two things that render
your conclusions baseless.
Show this. What is the equation for heat conduction through the Earth
crust? It is not simply the measured heat gradient multiplied with the
measured heat conduction coefficient.
Yeah, but the measured heat gradient will be influenced by the
presence of heat sources,
that are not taken into account in your simple expression.
I describe one effect. Sources, if any, would appear as additional
terms.
total gradient = gravitational/adiabatic + source dependent terms +
eventual something more.
Why is the gravitational/adiabatic heat gradient never used for the
solid crust?
David
(I hope Usenet didn't break the formatting and character sets. Check
the original on Google Groups in that case.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 15, 12:04 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Dec 13, 4:34 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Show what? Truth be told, I only assumed you were trying in some
odd way to compute the adiabatic gradient.
My way is very intuitive. Heat is motion. If moving upwards the motion
decelerate due to gravity. If moving downwards it accelerates. This
means there is a heat gradient.
Your way isn't physcics sorry.
Simply moving an object doesn't cause it to heat up, whether or not
it is in the presence of a gravitational field.
Just because you have derived an equation that is dimensionally
correct, does not make it physcis.
Quote:
As you see above in the references to Wikipedia there are different
ways to acheive the "adiabatic" gradient so I was asking you to show
and refer to the one you use.
It doesn't matter, since what you're doing has nothing to with
the adiabatic gradient.
Quote:
You're equating the work done on moving a block of matter
in a gravitational field with an equivalent change of heat in the
block.
If there is heat in the block then the parts of the block are moving.
When they move upwards they loose speed and thus temperature and when
they move downwards they gain speed and thus temperature.
I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand the physics of heat.
Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.
If what you said were true, then special relativity what have terms in
relating to the heating
up an object as accelerated close to the speed of light. It doesn't;
as objects move faster and faster
they become more massive, not hotter.
<snip>
I'm sorry but your basic physcis is wrong.
Stuart |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Jonsson |
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 16 2007, 9:03 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Dec 15, 12:04 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:34 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Show what? Truth be told, I only assumed you were trying in some
odd way to compute the adiabatic gradient.
My way is very intuitive. Heat is motion. If moving upwards the motion
decelerate due to gravity. If moving downwards it accelerates. This
means there is a heat gradient.
Your way isn't physcics sorry.
Simply moving an object doesn't cause it to heat up, whether or not
it is in the presence of a gravitational field.
How come this is the case for gases and fluids then?
Quote: As you see above in the references to Wikipedia there are different
ways to acheive the "adiabatic" gradient so I was asking you to show
and refer to the one you use.
It doesn't matter, since what you're doing has nothing to with
the adiabatic gradient.
It is the contemporary for solids.
Quote: You're equating the work done on moving a block of matter
in a gravitational field with an equivalent change of heat in the
block.
If there is heat in the block then the parts of the block are moving.
When they move upwards they loose speed and thus temperature and when
they move downwards they gain speed and thus temperature.
I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand the physics of heat.
Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.
The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.
The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to cat sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.
Why would the lattice vibrations be unaffected by gravitation? One
could eventually argue that the atoms in the lattice moves so short
distances that potential energy shift isn't big enough to shift
vibration one or more steps up in it's discreet set of quantum values.
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| brad |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jan 12, 9:53 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: On Dec 16 2007, 9:03 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:04 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:34 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:10 am, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:10 pm, David Jonsson <davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Jo Schaper <jonot34schape...@56socketdot.net
wrote:
And this is supposed to be significant how?
Sure, since it differs by a factor of two.
First of all, what you describe or tried to describe was the
"adiabatic gradient" which results from the Earth's self compression
as a result of its gravitational field.
Please show.
Show what? Truth be told, I only assumed you were trying in some
odd way to compute the adiabatic gradient.
My way is very intuitive. Heat is motion. If moving upwards the motion
decelerate due to gravity. If moving downwards it accelerates. This
means there is a heat gradient.
Your way isn't physcics sorry.
Simply moving an object doesn't cause it to heat up, whether or not
it is in the presence of a gravitational field.
How come this is the case for gases and fluids then?
As you see above in the references to Wikipedia there are different
ways to acheive the "adiabatic" gradient so I was asking you to show
and refer to the one you use.
It doesn't matter, since what you're doing has nothing to with
the adiabatic gradient.
It is the contemporary for solids.
You're equating the work done on moving a block of matter
in a gravitational field with an equivalent change of heat in the
block.
If there is heat in the block then the parts of the block are moving.
When they move upwards they loose speed and thus temperature and when
they move downwards they gain speed and thus temperature.
I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand the physics of heat.
Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.
The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.
The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to cat sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.
Why would the lattice vibrations be unaffected by gravitation? One
could eventually argue that the atoms in the lattice moves so short
distances that potential energy shift isn't big enough to shift
vibration one or more steps up in it's discreet set of quantum values.
David- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
another source to look at- THE ORIGIN of the SOLAR SYSTEM, edited by
S.F.Dermott . Terrestrial Planet Evolution and the Observational
Consequences of their Formation. by D. C. Tozer. this book is a
compendium of papers presented at the School of Physics at the
University of Newcastle upon Tyne - 29 March - 9 April 1976. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| don findlay |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Jonsson wrote:
Quote:
Please Google "lattice vibrations phonons" etc. The random vibrations
or motions of the atomic
constituents of an object are not altered by a mere translational
velocity of the object.
The crust is not in translational motion and I haven't said so either.
The lattice vibrations will increase on the down stroke and slow down
going upwards just like a bouncing ball.
The picture on the top right of this page shows it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Imagine gravity to cat sideways in that picture. Vibration would be
affected.
Do you see that interesting behaviour as in any way having anything to
do with crystal *growth*?
Quote:
Why would the lattice vibrations be unaffected by gravitation? One
could eventually argue that the atoms in the lattice moves so short
distances that potential energy shift isn't big enough to shift
vibration one or more steps up in it's discreet set of quantum values.
David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:12 pm
|
|
