 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> Thanks for the answer, Alan. I think, the more an element is located at
> the end of the elements table (all known elements), the more gravity it
> is producing.
That's not how a scientist would put it, but yes -- the periodic table of
elements is sorted by the number of protons per atom, which coincides with a
sorting by mass per atom, and there is a general trend that "heavier" elements
(those with a higher mass per atom) are also denser (i.e. have higher ratio of
mass per atom vs. volume occupied per atom).
This is just a trend though; for instance, copper, at position 29 in the table
has a density of 8.92 g/cm^3, whereas radium, at position 88 in the table, has a
density of just 5 g/cm^3.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for this information.
I wonder, if we still will find more elements, especially the heavier
ones. Or if we learn, to create ultra-heavy elements by our own somewhen
in the future, thanks to our continuous learning about new cosmic
building blocks (like quarks, black matter, etc.).
Maybe, one day we can even construct exotic elements that have a
negative gravity.
I think, I should go a little bit deeper into this science. Interesting
enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thanks for this information.
>
> I wonder, if we still will find more elements, especially the heavier
> ones. Or if we learn, to create ultra-heavy elements by our own somewhen
> in the future, thanks to our continuous learning about new cosmic
> building blocks (like quarks, black matter, etc.).
Maybe that so called "dark matter" is realy just a huge quantity of free
neutrons.
After all, "dark matter" is regarded as been non interacting with light,
having a mass, and only interact with normal matter gravitationaly. The
neutron nicely fit the bill.
>
> Maybe, one day we can even construct exotic elements that have a
> negative gravity.
That mean a negative MASS and ENERGY!
That's the stuff of fiction.
>
> I think, I should go a little bit deeper into this science. Interesting
> enough.
>
If you think about stable elements, no unless there is a catastrophic
break through.
More elements? Yes. But, most will exist only as single atoms for less
than a micro second, 0.000001 second, before they spontaneously
desintegrate.
The heaviest element discovered to date is:
Ununoctium symbole: Uuo atomic number: 118 and it's most stable
isotope have 294 nucleotides. It's half life is estimated to be less
than a nano-second...
It /could/ be a noble gas following the radon, but is yet to be
classified into any family.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, this stuff is exciting!
And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
at an asteroid nearby:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, "Negative Gravity" as term is tricky, it is not what I previously
thought it is. I was just reading over that article.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-12-2015 7:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>
> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
> at an asteroid nearby:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>
> :-)
>
I would call that "centripetal force" ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/2015 6:39 AM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>
> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
> at an asteroid nearby:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>
> :-)
>
Groan!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.12.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Alain:
> Maybe that so called "dark matter" is realy just a huge quantity of free
> neutrons.
> After all, "dark matter" is regarded as been non interacting with light,
> having a mass, and only interact with normal matter gravitationaly. The
> neutron nicely fit the bill.
Not really. According to the pretty well-tested Standard Model of
particle physics, free neutrons in deep space would readily undergo
beta(-) decay into hydrogen and electron neutrinos within a matter of a
quarter of an hour on average.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, this stuff is exciting!
>
> And even better, "Negative Gravity" has been located already in space,
> at an asteroid nearby:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Asteroid+Negative+Gravity
>
> :-)
>
There is no such thing as negative gravity.
But... There are cases where it may /look/ as if there is:
A small space object is rotating fast enough that the tengential speed
at it's surface is larger than it's escape velicity.
Only possible if the object is small enough that it's mecanical strength
is higher than the centrifugal force.
In the case of 1950DA asteroid, it looks like the Van Der Waal
interaction could be strong enough. Then again, it may actualy be one
big rock held together by purely mechanical force but that look like
it's more gravel like.
On a another scale, radiation pressure can overcome gravity.
That's a major factor in the solar wind.
At a cosmological scale, it can actualy push whole galaxies away from
one another.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I found out by myself, when reading it. That reporter used a very
misleading headline, my apologies for my error.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
