[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No subject

<rant> PATRICK STOP REMOVING THE SUBJECT LINE!!!! </rant>

-Raffi



At 03:21 PM 3/13/2004, ATS - Patrick Bureau wrote:

>actually physic and chemistry have proven that any inanimated object in 
>fact is simply hundreads of tightly bound moving atoms, so the paperweight 
>has no dynamic energy, but since its staionary, much like your car in 
>parked mode by the curb... it it is a mass, and the energy is still 
>there... its is STATIC energy. until a change in this (or another energy 
>come in play to make it become dynamic energy)
>
>a stone at rest as a mass, and energy p 16 of physics 101 manual  grade 11
>
>---
>ATS - Patrick Bureau -  Web site : http://ats.longcoeur.com
>AIM: texasscirocco - Yahoo: atsgtx - ICQ: 32918816 - MSN: atsgtx@hotmail.com
>See what I am selling today on ebay: http://tinyurl.com/22e5b
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>In your equation you come up with a rather large number for C, when in 
>actuality C is zero. (using the paperweight example)
>Therefore, C squared is.....still zero.
>Therefore, E = zero.
>Proves my point.
>
>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.
>
>Your atomic clocks?  Time didn't slow down, the clocks did.
>If TIME had slowed down, the clocks would have read FAST!  (ie, the clocks 
>would have raced ahead of "time")
>I win another round....:)
>
>any more?
>
>:)
>Larry
>   ----- 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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