[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
For those trying to reach this in 5th gear I should add that 299,792,458m/s
is in a vacuum... Since the Index of Refraction of air is generally assumed
to be around 1.0003 the speed of light in air becomes 299,702,547m/s...
Every little bit helps.
Physics lesson over.
-Raffi
At 08:20 PM 3/13/2004, Euroroc II wrote:
>Well that's easy... 299,792,458 meters per second :-)
>
>With rounding you can say 300 000 kilometers per second or 186 000 miles
>per second.
>
>-Raffi
>
>
>At 07:35 PM 3/13/2004, Michael Abatzis wrote:
>>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/
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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