[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
Hmmm... No comment needed.
-RGK-
At 05:35 AM 3/14/2004, Patrick Bureau wrote:
>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
>->
>->