[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
1. stop you raving and ranting about this subject on "removals of topics"
its been covers a few times
2. I am not the one removing the subject, seems at random the web interface
to my mail server will remove my name, ,my reply address, and topic. I have
complained several times to the mail server provider.
THIS IS NOT MY FUCKEN DOING OKAY ?
Get a grip! Or set a rule of deleting my messages with no topic already
---
ATS - Patrick Bureau - Web site :
http://ats.longcoeur.com]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-----
->From: scirocco-l-bounces@scirocco.org
->[mailto:scirocco-l-bounces@scirocco.org] On Behalf Of Euroroc II
->Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:41 PM
->To: ATS - Patrick Bureau
->Cc: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
->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
->
->
->_______________________________________________
->Scirocco-l mailing list
->Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
->http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
->
->