[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
- Subject: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
- From: abatzis2 at hotmail.com (Michael Abatzis)
- Date: Sat Mar 13 21:35:37 2004
hate to say it, but aaron's right. and the c is for the velocity of light,
which, god help me, i have finally forgotten. something x 10^6 i think.
-Michael Abatzis
New Orleans!
1988 Scirocco 2L 16v RIP
1987 Scirocco 2L 16v...
>From: "L F" <rocco16v@netzero.net>
>To: "Aaron" <aaron@brixtonhill.demon.co.uk>,"Scirocco Mailing List"
><scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
>Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:52:20 -0800
>
>Okay, Aaron, tell me what, in E=MC2, the letters stand for.
>I think you are calling "C" something different from what Albert said it
>stood for......
>
>Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Aaron
> To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more
>numbers
>
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – download MSN Toolbar now!
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/