Philosophy Discussion Forums

Misty wrote:Ice is about 9% less dense than liquid water, making ice lighter than liquid water.

http://www.ask.com/question/does-ice-we ... than-water

chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaws/f/icefloats.htm

Yes, but density is related to space between atoms. If you freeze 1 cubic metre of water, it will contain no more atoms than it did in its unfrozen state, the atoms will just be closer together. If you believe it weighs more, then where does the extra weight come from?

Cheers,
enegue

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Misty wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

bout

Ice is about 9% less dense than liquid water, making ice lighter than liquid water.

http://www.ask.com/question/does-ice-we ... than-water

chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaws/f/icefloats.htm

Misty,

You're confusing density with weight. They're not the same.

PhilX

How am I confusing density with weight? Did you read the links?

-- Updated Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:31 pm to add the following --

enegue wrote:

Misty wrote:Ice is about 9% less dense than liquid water, making ice lighter than liquid water.

http://www.ask.com/question/does-ice-we ... than-water

chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaws/f/icefloats.htm

Yes, but density is related to space between atoms. If you freeze 1 cubic metre of water, it will contain no more atoms than it did in its unfrozen state, the atoms will just be closer together. If you believe it weighs more, then where does the extra weight come from?

Cheers,
enegue

Ice weighs less than liquid water which is why it floats in water. Ice is 9% less dense than liquid water but takes up more space. Ice is lighter than liquid water. See post #12.

-- Updated Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:52 pm to add the following --

enegue wrote:
You are the food your eat + the water you drink + the air you breathe. Every atom in you comes from these sources. They just undergo chemical changes to go from non-living materials to living cells.

What humans eat/breathe/drink does not all stay in the body to cause growth. Unusable weight intake is 50-55% and is excreted out. So the growing/grown human increases mass to the earth. Of course as humans die it decreases mass of the earth.

Misty wrote:Ice weighs less than liquid water which is why it floats in water. Ice is 9% more dense than liquid water but takes up more space. Ice is lighter than liquid water. See post #12.

Things that are more dense, sink, and things that are less dense, float. Water in solid form is LESS DENSE than in liquid form, which is counter intuitive. The reason for this is given here. The atoms should get closer together as they become less active, but in water they don't. This has to do with the nature of Hydrogen and how it bonds with neighbouring atoms.

I found this fascinating as it explains why ice cubes GROW in their containers, and why filled bottles can EXPLODE in the freezer.

Misty wrote:enegue said:
You are the food your eat + the water you drink + the air you breathe. Every atom in you comes from these sources. They just undergo chemical changes to go from non-living materials to living cells.

What humans eat/breathe/drink does not all stay in the body to cause growth. Unusable weight intake is 50-55% and is excreted out. So the growing/grown human increases mass to the earth. Of course as humans die it decreases mass of the earth.

The body uses what it needs from the food, water, and air that it takes in, and eliminates what it doesn't, as waste. However, if your body acquires new atoms they have to come from somewhere, because your body doesn't make them. The atoms in food, water and air are joined together as molecules, and the chemical processes in the cells of your body rearrange those molecules into different molecules.



Cheers,
enegue

Misty's post #12 When I said "little differences" the differences found were smaller than the limits of accuracy in the equipment availiable. One big source of the increase in weight in plants is in the water uptake and the difficulties of measuring in a living plant. But as to the gross weight of the earth it makes no difference whether the water is in a cloud or in a lettuce plant or deep in the dirt. That, like ice, is a matter of density, not weight.

enegue wrote:

Misty wrote:Ice weighs less than liquid water which is why it floats in water. Ice is 9% more dense than liquid water but takes up more space. Ice is lighter than liquid water. See post #12.

Things that are more dense, sink, and things that are less dense, float. Water in solid form is LESS DENSE than in liquid form, which is counter intuitive. The reason for this is given here. The atoms should get closer together as they become less active, but in water they don't.

enegue, I have been saying that ice is LESS dense than water, then I made a mistake in post #17 and used the word more when I meant less. I have corrected that. Ice is less dense and lighter than liquid water. Ice expands making it take up more space. Misty

As usual, the thread is beginning to deviate from the original question. I'm going to try and directly answer the question, and attempt to generate some interesting discussion, by positing a new view which has not yet gained widespread acceptance, but which I think has lots of evidence to back it up, (which I have shared as some video links at the bottom of this post) as well as being able to resolve many current problems with existing models, including making bb theory unnecessary.

In this model, the Earth is getting more massive because all the large bodies of the Universe are growing more massive, on all scales. The idea is that new matter is constantly being generated in the cores of all large cosmic bodies via the process of pair production, which science has known about since 1932. You can google 'pair production' for a detailed explanation, but I won't get into that here.

In this model this is how the Universe grows. I emphasize grows and not expands as the current models suggest, because here not only are all the galaxies moving apart, but while they do they are growing more massive and adding new stars. One galaxy becomes a cluster of galaxies over time so that as two galaxies drift apart they later each become 10 galaxies now all drifting apart from one another. So the Universe is growing not merely 'expanding' as not only is apparent space/volume increasing but also total matter as well.

I'll start with the Moon. Or any satellite of any planet. As new matter grows within it, it grows in size and mass until it becomes a planet. By that time it will perhaps acquire a satellite or two of its own. During this time, it's corresponding planet will grow and go from being a rocky planet to a gas giant. Much like in the system of Jupiter and Saturn. The gas giant planet grows until eventually enough mass is created that thermonuclear fusion begins at its core and it becomes a Star. We can easily visualize this process as a snapshot with the systems of our own gas giant systems. Jupiter and Saturn can easily be viewed as 'solar systems in formation'. And if they were more massive that is definitely what they would be.

Now let's move on to the Star in this hypothetical system. As the gas giant planets in its orbit are growing, on their way to becoming their own solar systems, the Star is also growing, becoming a red giant. It eventually explodes, leaving behind multiple solar systems in infancy, and the remnants of this explosion eventually grow themselves, and the process continues until the remnants of the exploded Star have eventually grown into many solar systems. The one Star, through its death, has become its own Galaxy. We can now extend this idea and eventually imagine one Galaxy growing into a cluster of Galaxies via the same process.

So the idea here is that the Moon will eventually become like the Earth, the Earth will become like Jupiter, Jupiter will become like the Sun, the Sun will become like the Milky Way, and the Milky Way will eventually grow into a 'miniature Universe'. Just as once upon a time the Milky Way was but a Star, and the Sun was but a gas giant, and so on.

Now let's apply this model to bb theory. The error science makes in bb theory, is that when extrapolating back in time and moving the galaxies closer together, they keep fixed total mass. This is quite false. As the galaxies move closer together we must remove total mass. Each have fewer and fewer stars in them as they move closer together (going backwards in time), until eventually each of them are but two stars moving towards each other. Then, eventually, they are just two large bodies moving towards each other, and so on. So by the time we reach the theoretical beginning geometrical point, we have theoretical zero mass, and theoretical zero matter (meaning matter as we know it, that which exhibits the characteristics of matter we know like mass). It doesn't mean that nothing was there in the 'beginning', just no matter as we know it. No mass. Growth began from the theoretical point, creating matter and space as we know it. As the matter grows, the corresponding space grows. So no 'big bang' is needed. Not to mention that compacting all the known mass of the Universe together into a theoretical point seems a dubious way to imagine the Universe 'beginning' at face value.

At any rate, here is some evidence in support of growing bodies. It might be easy to just casually dismiss them, but I think they're pretty solid and bring up lots of good points. I apologize that I must resort to YouTube videos, but as I said this idea is still a bit 'underground', and all we have right now is what we have.

Evidence the Earth is growing: Evidence Mars is growing: Evidence the Moon is growing: Evidence Europa is growing: Alternative explanation for the Great Lakes (not glaciers): Alternative explanation for mountain growth: Comments? Opinions?

Misty. You're quite right that ice is less dense than water but that doesn't mean the overall mass decreases when water freezes. It simply means the volume occupied by the water increases.

Misty wrote:So the growing/grown human increases mass to the earth. Of course as humans die it decreases mass of the earth.

This is false. As the human grows she simply incorporates mass from elsewhere in the biosphere, which then returns to the biosphere post-mortem. The net mass of the planet can only change if matter leaves it or arrives from elsewhere. In fact the net mass of the earth increases by several tonnes per day as a consequence of micro-meteors bombarding it from space. This is slightly offset by lighter atoms in the upper atmosphere escaping the pull of the earth's gravity and drifting off elsewhere.

Regards Leo

[…]

Obvious Leo wrote:Misty. You're quite right that ice is less dense than water but that doesn't mean the overall mass decreases when water freezes. It simply means the volume occupied by the water increases.

Misty wrote:So the growing/grown human increases mass to the earth. Of course as humans die it decreases mass of the earth.

This is false. As the human grows she simply incorporates mass from elsewhere in the biosphere, which then returns to the biosphere post-mortem. The net mass of the planet can only change if matter leaves it or arrives from elsewhere.

Regards Leo

OK. So then, 1 person vs 7 billion persons bears no additional weight for the earth? It is OK with me either way, I am just trying to understand it. While humans and animals take in food, water and air, we also excrete at least half of what we consume for growth, using the rest for energy to maintain and function, so it seems logical to me that the exchange is not even, making an adult human/animal more heavy than what contributes to its growth. Also, how does the body grow when food is almost nil? In areas where food is scarce the body continues to grow anyway. (although eventually may die of starvation)

It is my understanding that the weight of the earth is approximate and cannot be measured to absolute, so how can we know for sure if the earth is/is not growing in size, mass or weight?

Even though Misty's OP appears to stem from a simple misunderstanding, it's interesting how productive conversation can flow from such things. I really don't mean this to sound either insulting or patronizing, but I think it goes to show the truth of the old adage: "there's no such thing as a silly question" and people should always ask questions about everything. Clearly we all feel confident that we know the answer to Misty's confusion, but I'll bet it's still possible for interesting ideas, that we hadn't previously considered, to flow from it. For example, this strange substance called water, and the reasons why it has the highly unusual property of becoming less dense when it freezes look as though they might be just around the corner from the last few posts.

Enegue:

I like that little quote (post #13) from John Cargill Brough. Nice little illustration of the counter-intuitive idea that something as apparently insubstantial as air (or one of its constituents) has mass which can become part of a solid. It's similarly counter-intuitive to look at a tiny acorn and a mighty oak tree and to think that most of that great big solid heavy lump of wood is made from one of the minor constituents of fresh air. I'm sure I've read somewhere that it's a fact that has even frequently tripped up Biology undergraduates when asked questions like: "where does the material from which a tree is made come from?"

So, if she likes Biology undergraduates, Misty can regard herself as being in good company and to be perhaps pointing out an important bit of counter-intuition.


Atreyu:

I think the conversation that various people are having with Misty about, essentially, the principle of conservation of matter is probably more relevant to her original purpose than Expanding Earth Theory is.

Comments? Opinions?

On this forum, the poster called DarwinX is a fan of (among many other things) "Expanding Earth theory". It might be an idea to look back at some of the posts he's written about it and some of the responses to see if the theory you're talking about here is the same thing. On a brief reading, it looks like it.

Steve3007 wrote:I like that little quote (post #13) from John Cargill Brough. Nice little illustration of the counter-intuitive idea that something as apparently insubstantial as air (or one of its constituents) has mass which can become part of a solid.

I discovered Brough's book when I was looking for some information about the immutable nature of atoms. Since then I've read most of his book. In the "Age of Monsters", his description of two reptiles in conflict is PRECISELY what I recall from the 1959 movie, "Journey to the Centre of the Earth". I came across an online copy of Jules Verne's book, but I haven't had time to find the dinosaur fight scene to see if it is similar to Brough's. It might just be the movie makers who have merged the two works.

Brough refers to scientists as philosophers, which certainly reflects a change in the usage of that word, since. His chapter on "The Amber Spirit" is about electricity, and I was informed in my reading of it, that the word "electron" is the Greek word for amber. Amber apparently was the first substance discovered to generate an electrostatic charge when rubbed, which the ancients thought was a spirit, hence the title of the chapter.

"Modern Alchemy" looks at chemistry and gives some good background info on what alchemy was all about. Apparently the alchemists thought that all metals came from the one substance and all you had to do was remove the impurities to get each metal, with gold as the most pure. The alchemists, even though wrong, where the smart guys of their time, and they contributed much to science in regard to acids and salts and alkalies, and such in their attempts to remove the impurities from base metals to produce gold. Oh, and the Philosopher's Stone was the magical substance that the alchemists were in search of to aid them in their quest for gold. Wonderful stuff!!!

Anyway, I recommend it to everyone for Brough's insights into the NEW REALM of science, as it was emerging 150 years ago.

Cheers,
enegue

By the process of accumulating "space dust" the earth is reputed to be gaining about 400 tons a day. I don't remember where I found that figure so don't bet the farm on it but I suspect that it's reasonable.

The Earth is reputed to weigh about 6X10 exp 19 tons. (6X10>19)

Somebody good with arithmetic could tell us when the earth will double in weight. And how long before the equater will be 10,000 miles long. Might be an interesting related side trip. Happy thoughts

Mechsmith wrote:By the process of accumulating "space dust" the earth is reputed to be gaining about 400 tons a day. I don't remember where I found that figure so don't bet the farm on it but I suspect that it's reasonable.

The Earth is reputed to weigh about 6X10 exp 19 tons. (6X10>19)

Somebody good with arithmetic could tell us when the earth will double in weight. And how long before the equater will be 10,000 miles long. Might be an interesting related side trip. Happy thoughts

According to a BBC report, Dr Chris Smith and Cambridge University physicist Dave Ansel have calculated that the Earth is LOSING 50,000 tonnes every year, despite the accumulation of 40,000 tonnes of "space dust" during that time (~110 tonnes/day). This is principally due to the loss of around 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1,600 tonnes of helium from the atmosphere.

Cheers,
enegue

O good. We have found a couple more theories to attempt to square with observations.

Frankly I am going to put a small amount on accreation for now but I am not quite ready to bet the farm.

I'm just an ignorant laymen sharing what I've found on the Internet. Where are you getting your knowledge from, Mechsmith?

Cheers,
enegue

"So let's do all the major numbers.

The Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes of dust each year. A decent meteor storm can add a tonne in a single go. But the vast majority of this dust is stuff left over from when our solar system was formed. The gravitational field of our Earth just sucks it in.

What about losses?

Each year about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1600 tonnes of helium leave the Earth for outer space. They're gone forever.

As another loss, what about the rockets that we send into the space? After all, the Saturn V that took us to the Moon weighed just under 3000 tonnes on the launch pad. But the overwhelming majority of that fell back to Earth. If you do the numbers, it works out that each year about 65 tonnes of payload (very expensive payload) leave the Earth forever.

So basically each year the Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes, and loses about 95,000 tonnes, which gives us an overall loss of (ballpark figure) of about 55,000 tonnes. If the average weight of a human on our planet is about 62 kilograms, that works out to about 890,000 people, or about half the weight of one of those giant passenger liners, or a percentage you would write down as about 0.000000000000001 per cent of the mass of our planet.

But it's not enough to translate into a lucrative best seller on the massive weight loss industry charts."



I got this from some website. Maybe it will help you.