How would the molar mass affect a particles buoyancy in air…?
Obviously, temperature would be a factor, after warm air and other gases rise unnaturally when heated, but ultimately they will always fall back to Earth…
And the higher gases and other particles rise in the atmosphere, the reduction in pressure would mean less absorption.
If l may intrude OGF and SM, does’nt the molecular mass come
into play with the rotational speed of planet earth versus the
gravitational pull of the planets mass?
Like a centrifuge seperaing the heavy particles from the light
ones?
Thus the heavier particals stay closer to the surface and the light
ones are thrown further out?
Or does’nt it work like that?
For instance, what if the planet was not rotating at all?
How would things change then?
Sorry for butting in but l find it fascinating!
Regards Donkeyman!
It’s a good theory Donkeyman, and you are not butting in, I appreciate your input…However…
If you threw a handful of rice up in the air while traveling at 125 mph on a train it would drop to the floor and not fly to the front of the train unless the train was to stop suddenly…Inertia perhaps?
Though the rotation of the earth won’t have much to do with the composition of the atmosphere, outside of the global circulation patterns, it was a good question though.
I mentioned the molecular mass to consider where one might find different gasses in still air where the vertical column has the same pressure and temperature. The thing is, that never happens!
Inertia is a totally different thing to gravity OGF, Inertia is really
just a bodies resistance to a change of speed or direction!As the
planet is spinning it generates an outward force that applies to all
loose or seperate objects that exist freely from the earth, such as
oceans, atmosphere, animals etc, etc! These items would, if there
was no gravity! Just be thrown outwards into space and end up
somewhere in space, only gravity (or ( molecular cohesion) keeps
everything on the ground, so to say.
For anything to escape from earths gravity it would have to reach
a speed of 7mls a second irrespective of its mass!
Inertia is the effect you described of going through the windscreen
when your car hits a wall!
It also is the reason you have to use energy to go faster!
I think that was the question l was asking SM?
In an ideal situation, would the column of air stratify into its
seperate gasses depending on their different molecular weights?
This could probably be confirmed in a laboratory test l think?
The Earth whizzes around at 1000 mph donkeyman (24,000 miles circumference covered in 24 hours) and just like my train example the atmosphere whizzes around with it. (otherwise my rice would fly upward) Therefore, should the world stop spinning, (a change of speed)everything would be flung off as you rightly describe…by inersia.
The outward force you describe is cancelled out by gravity…The attraction that a large mass has actually draws objects to it and not the reverse…The moon (another large object) is a good example of this attraction and it exerts a force that distorts the oceans as it passes by.
Regards…Foxy.
Then we are in agreement OGF!
One more question though,?
What is the rotational speed of the world at the poles?
And would you express it in mph or rpd?
Good post OGF, exactly why l put the exponential growth of the
fly populations in artic and sub artic Russia and Alaska in my OP!
The signs are there that things are tipping allready as you say!
But as Surfamum says, we have nothing to lose by modifying our
behaviour, only a bit of money!
What is disturbing though is that there are no signs of aircraft
manufacture being reduced, or these multi storey mobile towns
Cruising the world cutting back?
Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind!
[I]Fashion: is it a dirty word? Although it doesn’t have the reputation of, say, the oil industry, it is making a sizeable contribution to warming the planet – the fashion industry was responsible for 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2015, according to the Pulse of the Fashion Industry Report (to put things in perspective, that’s only slightly less than Russia).
The fashion industry produced almost 5% of manmade CO2 emissions in 2015 – more than aviation and shipping combined.
[/I]
Yes that is very surprising OGF! Could that be because of the
amounts of plastics we insist on including in our materials nowadays?
I know that l have trouble getting pure cotton shirts or underpants?
Which l find to be much more comfortable to wear than the injection
moulded alternatives on sale at present!? Cotton is also completely
biodegradeable!
Regards Donkeyman!
Wished l could still run OGF!But l agree cotton is far superior in
my book, but showflakes would’nt know anything about that?
Another thought l have had on this theme is that all the synthetic
materials we now use are based on oil, so who is to blame for the
pollution? The fashion lndustry, or, the oil industry??
Regards Donkeyman!
Perhaps a bit of both Donkeyman, but it’s a case of supply and demand and you can’t blame these companies for making money. However, when most companies were small family run businesses production would have been local and the supply of raw materials would have been kept to a low level and demand probably outstripped supply.
But these big multinationals can produce stuff on a global scale, so they have either driven the the small guy out of business or bought them out and consequently can supply in bulk and ship it across the world,
hence all the cheap far eastern products than now adorn most of the shelves in our shops, and contributed to growing unemployment in the UK. Globalism is now destroying the planet and it’s been blamed on climate change…
Would it be like standing on a roundabout Donkeyman…???
