What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers

[aaron at brixtonhill.demon.co.uk (Aaron)]

On 13 Mar 2004, at 20:57, L F wrote:

> In your equation you come up with a rather large number for C, when in 
> actuality C is zero. (using?the paperweight example)

WTF? Where are you getting this from? C is a constant, in this case - 
the speed of light, or 300 000 000 m/sec

> Therefore, C squared is.....still zero.

C squared is 90000000000000000

> Therefore, E = zero.
> Proves my point.

Only thing it proves is that you don't have a clue what I'm talking 
about

> ?
> Oh, and E=MC2 makes no reference to time, other than the oblique way 
> time is involved in establishing a common number/reference for 
> velocity.


It does make a reference to time - C, speed of light is expressed in 
meters/second. You can't have velocity without time. Therefore time is 
an integral part of e=mc2

> ?
> Your atomic clocks?? Time didn't slow down, the clocks did.??

The clocks ran slow because they experienced less time. They 
experienced less time because they were moving at relatively higher 
velocity than the static clock. The actual figures were far too close 
to predicted values to be chance - and anyway, atomic clocks are 
extraordinarily accurate

>  If TIME had slowed down, the clocks would have read FAST!? (ie, the 
> clocks would have raced ahead of "time")

Utter nonsense, time has slowed down in the aircraft, therefore it's 
clock will be running slower than the one on the ground

> I win another round....:)

Larry, I've noticed before that you are completely incapable of 
admitting that you're wrong about anything. This is a shame - you sure 
as hell know a lot about sciroccos and a lot of people benefit from 
this knowledge and experience. However, no one can be right about 
everything all the time! And if they were, life would probably be 
pretty boring for them as they'd never get the pleasure of learning 
anything new.

However, in this case - you really are wrong. Julie said "I thought 
mass increased with velosity. E=MC2?"  - you told her she was wrong 
when she wasn't. You were wrong, you are wrong. 80 years of established 
physics says you're wrong. These same physics (e=mc2) won a world war 
and have effected world geopolitics ever since, and that's simply not 
going to go away never mind how often Larry bawls "wrong, wrong, 
wrong!"

> any more?
> ?

Be my guest

> :)
> Larry


Aaron in London
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Aaron
> To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more 
> numbers
>
> On 13 Mar 2004, at 02:45, L F wrote:
>
> > You can probably go nearly as fast in your 8v as you can in a U2, so 
> I
> > can't imagine where THAT tale originated.
>  >? and, uh, how you gonna' measure this "increase in mass"? Sounds 
> like
> > an unproveable theory.
>
> My mistake - the experimenters didn't use a U2 (got mixed up with the
> anisotropy experiment), in fact they used 2 commercial airliners
>  equipped with atomic clocks. They had a third clock on the ground and
>  all three were perfectly synced. Then they sent one off east, and the
>  other off west so that both circumnavigated the globe. Then they 
> looked
>  at the clocks. And, almost exactly as predicted by the equation E=MC2 
> -
>  time passed slower on the aircraft than it did on the ground. This was
>  widely accepted as empirical proof of Einstein's theory. And if the
>  time/velocity component, works - then it's extremely likely that the
>  energy/mass component also works
>
> > Old Albert didn't say energy and mass are the same thing...look at
> > his equation...it says mass is a contributor to energy.
>
> Actually - that's exactly what the equation says. E=MC2 is all about
> converting between energy and mass. mass is not a contributor to
> energy, it IS energy, potential energy anyway. It basically says that a
> small amount of mass is equal to an enormous amount of energy - and
> vice versa. We're not looking at the time/velocity effects here, so we
> can take C squared to just be a very large number, 9x10 to the power of
>  16, in fact
>
> > I have a three pound paperweight sitting on my desk right now. It
> > has mass. It has no energy. You have to add velocity (drop the
> > paperweight) before there is any energy.
>
> Ok - lets use your example to show you just how much energy your
> paperweight possesses. Lets call your 3 pounds 1.5 kilos (for
> simplicity's sake):
> so e=1.5 x C squared
> ?????? e=1.5 x 90000000000000000
> ?????? e= 135000000000000000 Joules
>
> That's (obviously), shit loads of energy, in fact it's equivalent to
> 32300 kilotonnes of TNT, or equivalent to more than 2500 "Little Boy"
> A-Bombs like they dropped on Hiroshima. That's how much energy is
> locked up in your paperweight - don't drop it!
>
> Fortunately. It's very difficult to liberate this energy. This is the
>  amount of energy you'd get if you annihilated your paperweight utterly
>  - converted all the mass to energy. This occurs readily in the nuclear
>  furnace of our sun, or any other active star. And, with the (direct)
>  help of Einstein and his equation e=mc2 we have replicated this effect
>  to some degree with atomic bombs.
>
>
> > Look at his equation.
> > Look at it again.
>
> I suggest you get yourself a basic physics text book - I'm sure it
> would explian these concepts more clearly than me
>
> > Larry
> > (I'm done. )
>
>
> Aaron in London
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >? From: Aaron
> > To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
> > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more
> > numbers
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> > On 12 Mar 2004, at 01:02, L F wrote:
> >
> > > No, Aaron.
> > > Mass does not increase with velocity.
> >
> >? Actually - it does, but we're talking about a lot of velocity before
> >? these effects become measurable. And they have been measured, aboard
> > U2
> >? spy planes initially (and I'm sure these findings have been 
> replicated
> >? since).
> >
> > > If it did, then the converse would be true, i.e. mass would 
> decrease
> > > with a decrease in velocity.
> >? > Hence, an item traveling at zero velocity would have minimal mass
>  > and
> > > if that item were backing up fast enough, it would have NO mass.
> >
> > No - again you're wrong. When we state mass, we're actually stating
> > resting mass.
> >
> > >
> > > Seriously, if mass increased according to its velocity, then light
> > > would have a BUNCH of mass. Yet, as we know, light does not have
> > > mass, even at 186,000m/sec.
> >
> > Light (photons) are confusing. They behave as if they have no mass 
> (ie
> > they travel at the speed of light), yet they can be deflected by
> > gravitational forces, lensing. This is one of the great mysteries of
> > physics. Quantum theory goes some way to explaining this paradox, 
> but I
> > do not have the education to flesh out these arguments
> >
> > > If your 'Roc's mass increased as the velocity increased, tell me,
> > > where does that increased mass come from?
> >
> > It comes from it's (kinetic) energy, e=mc2. Einstein's theory states
> > (put simply) that energy and mass are the same thing.
> >
> > > (Okay, Ron, you can delete the comment about "bugs on the
> >? > windshield") Increased energy it DOES acquire, but not increased
> >? > mass.
> > > Don't know where that idea comes from, Aaron,
> >
> > Einstein, he's quite a famous physicist.
> >
> > > but it makes an interesting theory, kinda' like the "the faster you
> > > go, the slower time goes"
> >
> > Absolutely correct - this has been the basis for many science fiction
> > stories. A photon travelling at the speed of light has experienced 
> zero
> > time. Similarly, a human being travelling at the speed of light
> > (impossible) would experience zero time. If a human being could
> > accelerate to the speed of light, fly to alpha centauri and back (a
> >? distance of 8 light years round trip) and then decelerate to
> > standstill
> >? they would believe that no time had elapsed at all (assuming
> >? acceleration and deceleration were instantaneous, another
> >? impossibility). Their family and friends however would have been
> >? waiting to see them for 8 years.
> >
> > > Ha. To both I say, "show me the proof".
> >
> > Again, I refer you to Einstein's equation e=mc2 - this is my proof. 
> If
> > you have a valid mathematical objection to this formula then I 
> suggest
> > you present it to the international physics community. I'm sure 
> they'd
> > be acutely interested in your ideas
> >
> > > Larry
> >
> >
> > Aaron in London
> >
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Aaron
> > > To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more
> > > numbers
> > >
> > > No, Larry - Julie is correct
> > >
> > > Mass increases with velocity - which is why it's impossible to hit
> > the
> > > speed of light (no matter how many valves you have). The faster you
> > go,
> > > the more energy you need to accelerate further, exponentially. 
> Until
> > > you reach the point that you need infinite energy in order to
> > > accelerate an infinite mass.
> > >
> > > You are correct that energy increases with velocity - this is 
> common
> > > sense. A mass with velocity has kinetic energy. This is the energy
> > > which rips your car apart when you wipe out.
> > >
> > > Aaron in London
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l