# Nuclear explosions in space

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Beaconator, Nov 15, 2022.

1. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
So the heaviest elements would center themselves in space while one’s on earth gravitate obviously toward Earth.

3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,005
That's not how gravity works.

5. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
So they would be the same no matter on earth or in space? Or are you talking about in orbit?

7. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,005
They would react to gravity the same way, yes. Acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass (for small objects.)

8. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
Reacting to an object that is always in the same position is different than acting to one that is always changing.

the universe could very well act as a magnetic mixer for every element.

Last edited: Nov 24, 2022
9. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,005
No, it's not. Same acceleration in both cases for any Newtonian speed.
It could also be made of green cheese. However, in both cases, reality says that that's not the case.

10. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
What part of reality? Gravity is constant despite mass or lack thereof. !

good luck.

how does any of that relate to all the elements. Because so far I hear far reaching principals built for an exact and not a chaotic world.

11. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,005
Physics.
The force of gravity is given by F=G(M1M2)/r^2. And since acceleration = F/M, you get a constant acceleration in a given gravitational field. And if your object is small relative to the 'source' of the gravity, then the size/density/shape of the object does not matter. Nor does the speed - again for Newtonian speeds.

12. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
Bah humbug it’s going to be a rotten Christmas.

your equation relies on masses and radii. Yet you intend to say the mass and radius of earth is equivalent to the effects of space?

I could easily say the mass of beryllium is enough to revolve around our heaviest element in open space or orbit.

and you might think different doesn’t make you wrong.

but what is right?

13. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,330
The "r" in the equation refers to the distance between the centers of M1 and M2, not to the radius of either. More generally, it would be labeled as 'd'. "r" is sometimes substituted for those situations where we are talking about the "surface gravity" of a spherical body like a planet. So while 'r" might not have been the best choice to use in this context, anyone with even a passing grasp of this subject would have gotten the gist. Why should anyone pay any mind to your ruminations when you fail to even display a basic grasp of the subject.

14. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
All our knowledge comes from either separating elements or combining them.

Yet we want to argue gravity when faced with a similar concept. And the fact remains the elements would gravitate and combine differently in space.

each element has different characteristics. Together they should share all available principals and outcomes.

15. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,005
No, it doesn't. See the post above.

The rest of your post is word salad. Have another egg nog and be happy for Christmas!

16. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,330
That's not the point. The point is that if you are going to try and pass judgement on the present state of scientific knowledge, you need to to show that you have at least a modicum of understanding of what that present state is, even if you disagree with it.

17. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
I don’t disagree with it.

I’m just pointing out that the elements would combine differently in space than on Earth. 118 mols in zero gravity is different than 118 in Earth’s atmosphere

in space you could place and arrange the elements differently than you could on earth. Both might have some sort of merit.

Last edited: Nov 28, 2022
18. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,035
Chemistry and nuclear physics are not affected by the strength of the local gravitational field.

19. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
Placing the elements in a certain arrangement would affect which elements combine first. And that task would be easier in space. Unless you want to hang them by string.

So is there a “pure” way to arrange them in a three dimensional space? Or should I just throw them against the wall and see what sticks.

20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,035
Well, yes, in the same way that choosing whether you put the sugar or the milk in your coffee first affects which part of the water/coffee/milk/sugar mixture combines first. Obvious.
What task? What are you trying to achieve?
How would hanging things from a string help?
What does "pure" mean in this context?
It depends what your aims are.

C C likes this.
21. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
Yet the order also affects the abilities of other elements to actually combine.
putting all the elements in one volume.
it doesn’t, but could be an alternative to doing the task in space.
objective.

if the universe began in a hot dense state it would be better to start with the most dense element and work down to the least.
My aims are quite independent from the outcome.

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
38,035
Why do you want to put all elements together?

23. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
I believe it will further explain our universe.

I could go on and will because I believe you are not against me but for truth.

Billions of years have passed and it would be the first time all the elements have been put in one location.

so at the very least a souvenir.