BB is an incomplete theory . A System Universe is more complete.

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
What does then ?
Click to expand...
What does what? What produces Alpha and Beta particles? As I already said it is the decay of the daughter isotopes.
Radioisotopes suffer from an "instability" in the Nucleus, which can be the result of an imbalance between neutrons and proton numbers, or simply because as you try and put more and more proton and neutrons into a nucleus to make heavier ones, the nucleus tends to become less stable.
The nucleus will tend to find a more stable arrangement. Either by ejecting an Alpha particle which is essentially a Helium nucleus composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, which reduces both the atomic number and atomic mass number (sum of the number of proton and neutrons) of the nucleus, by reducing both its neutron and proton count by 2, or, by emitting a beta particle which is produced in the nucleus by the decay of a neutron into a proton and electron. This increases the atomic number by 1 but does not change the atomic mass number.
In some instances, where the instability is due to a deficit of neutrons in the nucleus, a proton will convert to a neutron by emission of a positron. This is known as Beta+ emission.
While in most instances any given isotope will decay by only one of these processes, there are cases when it can decay by more than one. For example, Bismuth 212 can either decay into Thalium 208 via Alpha decay or Polonium 212 by Beta decay. It will take the alpha decay route about twice as often ( all nuclear decays are statistical by nature. While you can never predict when a given nucleus will decay, or by which route when there is more than one option, with a large sample you can predict how many nuclei will have decayed by which route over a given amount of time)
 
river said:
Yes

So is mass proportional to E ?

No .

Because mass is lowest form of energy , in the Universe.
Click to expand...
So, again: since you're just going to run off with your own ideas anyway, is there any point in me explaining the mass to energy conversion?
 
river said:
So E=m and m=E is wrong ?
Click to expand...
In terms of equating rest mass to energy, it is E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2.
I'm at a total loss of how you got from what I said that I was denying the mass-energy relationship.
I said in the post that the energy produced by fission comes from the difference in rest mass between parent and daughter product. The rest mass lost is converted to energy.
 
river said:
Because we all want to know ; not just me .

Continue Dave .
Click to expand...
All right. I'll try one more time. (To those who have the math: this is super-simplified. It's much more complex than this, but ... baby-steps.)

The amount of energy an object has is proportional to its mass and to its velocity squared, thusly:

A one ton car, sitting stationary in a parking lot will not injure you. Its velocity is 0.
(Let's use mannequins instead.)
A one ton car moving at 10mph will knock a single mannequin flying.
A one ton car moving at 20mph will do much more damage than simply sending two mannequins flying; it will smash them to bits.

The amount of damage a moving car will do is not proportional to its velocity - it is geometric. The 20mph car - going twice as fast as the 10mph car - will actually do four times as much damage.

Does this make sense so far?
 
Janus58 said:
In terms of equating rest mass to energy, it is E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2.
I'm at a total loss of how you got from what I said that I was denying the mass-energy relationship.
I said in the post that the energy produced by fission comes from the difference in rest mass between parent and daughter product. The rest mass lost is converted to energy.
Click to expand...

So E=m and M=e , is not equal .
 
DaveC426913 said:
All right. I'll try one more time.

The amount of energy an object has is proportional to its mass and to its velocity squared, thusly:

A one ton car, sitting stationary in a parking lot will not injure you. It's v is 0.
(Let's use mannequins instead.)
A one ton car moving at 10mph will knock a single mannequin flying.
A one ton car moving at 20mph will do much more damage than simply sending two mannequins flying; it will smash them to bits.

The amount of damage a moving car will do is not proportional to its velocity - it is geometric. The 20mph car - going twice as fast as the 10mph car - will actually do four times as much damage.

Does this make sense so far?
Click to expand...

How ?

What has geometrics have to do with any of this ?
 
river said:
How ?

What has geometrics have to do with any of this ?
Click to expand...
Do you intuit that a car moving twice as fast will do more than twice as much damage?
Take it farther.
Do you think that a car plowing into six mannequins at 60mph will simply send the six of them as far as a car moving at 10mph hitting one mannequin?
The 60mph car will smash all six mannequins to tiny pieces and scatter them across a large field.
Make sense so far?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Do you intuit that a car moving twice as fast will do more than twice as much damage?
Take it farther.
Do you think that a car plowing into six mannequins at 60mph will simply send the six of them as far as a car moving at 10mph hitting one mannequin?
The 60mph car will smash all six mannequins to tiny pieces and scatter them across a large field.
Make sense so far?
Click to expand...

Go on .
 
river said:
Give what up ?
Click to expand...
man-making-rude-v-sign-26361386.jpg
 
DaveC426913 said:
Does that make sense so far?
If you follow that, you'll see why energy has a geometric relationship with velocity.
Double the velocity and you more than double the energy - you quadruple it.
Click to expand...

So in a head on collision , between two vehicles you get ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top