J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood converted
to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course, enriches it
for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If it
acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it will just get
absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon cycle. Only if it stays
there unchanged and immutable will it lock carbon away, in which case the
fertiliser effect is illusory.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more be a
Nobel prize for theology actually.

Which just goes to show how little you know about science at all.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood converted
to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course, enriches it
for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If
it acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it will just
get absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon cycle. Only if
it stays there unchanged and immutable will it lock carbon away, in
which case the fertiliser effect is illusory.


I see you are as blatantly ignorant of how soil, fertilizers and botany
in general works, as everything else.


The largest contribution of e.g. peat, which is mainly carbon, is that
it acts as a matrix to hold other nutrients and water.

ALL the carbon in a plant is synthesised from atmospheric CO2 or at best
weak carbonic acid absorbed by the root systems.
..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Mass.

The constituents all weigh a bit less, even taking into account they
are further away from the center of the earth..

Sorry, no. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body, and that
doesn't vary just because you've wound up your cuckoo clock. It still has
exactly the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons as it always did.


And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole
atoms? Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost?
How's that work then?


All those items do not have fixed masses.

Oh, but they do, you see. Winding up your cuckoo clock doesn't exactly
accelerate them to near the speed of light, does it? And that's the only
way their mass can change.



E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?


E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a situation
where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:34:36 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
You've just described nuclear fusion. There's not much of that happening
in your immediate environment (apart from the large furnace about eight
light-minutes away).

No I have not.

If the electrostatic force of repulsion were not overcome by a stronger
force then matter would not exist.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Mass.

The constituents all weigh a bit less, even taking into account they
are further away from the center of the earth..

Sorry, no. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body, and
that doesn't vary just because you've wound up your cuckoo clock. It
still has exactly the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons as
it always did.


And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole
atoms? Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost?
How's that work then?


All those items do not have fixed masses.

Oh, but they do, you see. Winding up your cuckoo clock doesn't exactly
accelerate them to near the speed of light, does it? And that's the
only way their mass can change.



E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?


E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a
situation where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

Humpty Dumpty also made words fit what he wanted them to mean without
regard for what they do. Now what happened to him?

Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand even
Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

Why don't you give it a rest, take a glass of warm milk and some
Ovaltine, and relax in your ignorant certainties?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it
into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As
it rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The
same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the earth
it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use that
combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) which is what
set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by those helpful little
molluscs for millions of years, now swans around the atmosphere like there's
no tomorrow, which might be right.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary
of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared towards
laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary 'of
Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be found?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it
into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As
it rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The
same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the earth
it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use that
combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) which is
what set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by those
helpful little molluscs for millions of years, now swans around the
atmosphere like there's no tomorrow, which might be right.

calcium hydroxide will not stay calcium hydroxide long in the presence
of carbonic acid dear.

And cement is a damned site more complex than that.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary
of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared towards
laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary 'of
Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be found?

The accepted definition from scientists of course.

Did the chammbers come with the Bumper Book of How Stuff Works as a job lot?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:36:58 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

[Citation needed]

http://www.eric.ed.GOV/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchVa lue_0=EJ062216&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno =EJ062216

And for an electron increasing its mass due conversion of its own energy

http://www.sciencedirect.COM/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVW-4BJW980-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVer sion=0&_userid=10&md5=f001da71c5c02ef759f8594ea237 d6c5

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to loads or
people's satisfaction. If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only dished
out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all ever, you're
wrong.

Anyway, I didn't ask you to prove a theory. I asked you to demonstrate the
practical effect you said existed.

Which just goes to show how little you know about science at all.

I think not.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to loads
or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make such
a claim.


If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all ever,
you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory
AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole
cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl Popper
for light relief?

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be. They
are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say is that
they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably wrong, but iot
took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is not.


If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.




I think not.

Never a truer word spoken I trow.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood
converted to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course,
enriches it for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If it
acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it
will just get absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon
cycle. Only if it stays there unchanged and immutable will it lock
carbon away, in which case the fertiliser effect is illusory.


I see you are as blatantly ignorant of how soil, fertilizers and
botany in general works, as everything else.

No, not so at all. I simply gave you a choice of two possibilities. You
have chosen the latter.

The largest contribution of e.g. peat, which is mainly carbon, is that
it acts as a matrix to hold other nutrients and water.

It's not actually the carbon but the organic structure of the peat that does
that. As peat contains no free carbon at all, there is no reason whatsoever
to assume that pure carbon in the form of charcoal would work in any similar
way. In fact it all seems rather unlikely to me. But who am I to criticise
what the greenies say is the truth?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a
situation where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

Humpty Dumpty also made words fit what he wanted them to mean without
regard for what they do. Now what happened to him?

What words? What twisted meanings?


Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand
even Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

I understand them very well, thank you. Why do you think I don't?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers
Dictionary of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared
towards laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of
science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary
'of Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be
found?
The accepted definition from scientists of course.

Of course. All I asked was what is was and where it may be found. Twice
now you've been completely unable to say. Will this be a third time?


Did the chammbers come with the Bumper Book of How Stuff Works as a
job lot?

No, nor should it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one expects.

If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of course is
impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real world, even
scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their
qualifications.

http://www.andrews-corner.ORG/troll.jpg

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all
time. Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow,
converting it into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it
rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere
again. The same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the
earth it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use
that combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
which is what set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by
those helpful little molluscs for millions of years, now swans
around the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow, which might be right.

calcium hydroxide will not stay calcium hydroxide long in the presence
of carbonic acid dear.

It does actually. In moist conditions a surface layer of calcium carbonate
will be formed over the calcium hydroxide, but that stops further reaction
as the calcium carbonate so formed is very water insoluble.

And cement is a damned site more complex than that.

Of course it is. I gave you the simple version that you might understand.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:15:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body.

Now you reveal your ignorance of scientific definitions in addition
to your ignorance of scientific principles.

What you have given in imprecise terms is the definition of amount
of substance (for which the SI unit is the mole).

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object
or the proportion between force and acceleration referred
to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

As you are not prepared to use the correct definitions, it is becoming
more and more apparent that any discussion with you is totally pointless.

Furthermore your repeated attempts to ridicule any scientific evidence
suggests that you are acting in the capacity of a troll.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
Roger R wrote:

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing
machines
quoting a power factor value!

Surely the power factor doesn't make a washing machine
any more or less efficient?

(not sure if you intend that as humourous, but as there was no emoticon)
No it doesn't - still washes just as well.
But the label is about the energy efficiency not the washing efficiency.
And AIUI if the power factor is low it will cost more to run, so for the
user its less efficient.

Roger R

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:03:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Roger R wrote:

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing machines
quoting a power factor value!

Surely the power factor doesn't make a washing machine
any more or less efficient?

well it does SLIGHTLY.

lots of inductive loads generate out of phase current, which is fine as
far as it goes, but that out of phase current still results in losses
down resistive transmission lines and wiring.

Losses shouldn't happen to any measurable extent between a washing
machine and the meter. Beyond the meter it's currently (weedy pun !)
somebody elses problem.

Derek

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
Roger R wrote:

I don't recall any of those 'energy efficiency labels' on washing
machines
quoting a power factor value!

Surely the power factor doesn't make a washing machine
any more or less efficient?

(not sure if you intend that as humourous, but as there was no emoticon)
No it doesn't - still washes just as well.
But the label is about the energy efficiency not the washing efficiency.
And AIUI if the power factor is low it will cost more to run, so for the
user its less efficient.

Roger R

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If you go for I THINK anaerobic decomposition, the carbon in the tree or
plant eventually becomes carbon, or hydrocarbon..typically methane.

OK, but how's that gonna happen? Trees are surrounded by air, so there is
no way - in their natural environment - that there'll be much anaerobic
decomposition taking place.

Mind you, you definitely don't want any methane - it's a very potent global
warmer.

That is after all what carbon based fuels are..old swamps. silted over and
left to fester for a few million years.

Agreed, although the climatic conditions were very different back then. I
don't think there's much new peat or coal being formed these days, although
if you've got some links to supporting research, that would be great.

No, you can store it where it wont be subject to oxidation, thats all.

Typically underwater.

I don't think you mean "oxidation", do you? Anyway, didn't you say that
anaerobic decomposition would produce methane?

Whatever - I think we can both agree that thinking trees will absorb CO2 to
any significant extent is wrong, and designing environmental policies around
it is wrong, too. Whilst *some* of a dead tree *might* end up as peat or
carbon, most of it goes straight back to CO2.

SteveT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in any
terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be. They
are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say is that
they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably wrong, but iot
took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is not.

If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible. Science
is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best statement
about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due course
by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are problems with
two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
because where they overlap they disagree. One day we'll find something
better. Until then, they are both extremely useful for day-to-day science
and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

STeveT

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.

Bill

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:15:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body.

Now you reveal your ignorance of scientific definitions in addition
to your ignorance of scientific principles.

I gave a reputable source as the origin of the definition I used. Are they
wrong? If so, who are you to say that?

What you have given in imprecise terms is the definition of amount
of substance (for which the SI unit is the mole).

No, that's not the same.

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object
or the proportion between force and acceleration referred
to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

As you are not prepared to use the correct definitions, it is becoming
more and more apparent that any discussion with you is totally
pointless.

My definition at least came with a source. What's yours?

Furthermore your repeated attempts to ridicule any scientific evidence
suggests that you are acting in the capacity of a troll.

I do not and have not ridiculed any scientific evidence. Why do you say I
have?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
As you continue to make unsubstantiated claims without entering into
reasoned debate, you are appearing more and more like the Alf Garnett
of physics.
Trying to prove black is white doesn't sound like Alf Gartnett to me.

Bill

Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in
any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be.
They are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say
is that they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably
wrong, but iot took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is
not. If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best
statement about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due
course by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are
problems with two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, because where they overlap they disagree. One day
we'll find something better. Until then, they are both extremely
useful for day-to-day science and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Ron Lowe wrote:
Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

I've always found Kingshouse very welcoming - what were you doing wrong?


Oh, not much.

I've found it welcoming when staying as a room guest, but the barman in
the climber's bar round the back could be somewhat surly to us as mere
campers.

It's been a few years since I've camped in Glencoe.
( You can no longer camp in the bog beside the clachaig; they dug bloody
great trenches to stop it. You now have to use 'official' campsites,
like the grim Red Squirrel or the distant forrestry commision one. )

I've just got back from a long weekend climbing in the Lakes, we were
camping in Langdale. I was warned to expect to order a 'pint of your
surliest attitude, landlord', but that did not transpire.

Both the Old Dungeon Ghyll and the pub in Chapel Style were both very
welcoming. First Class.

--
Ron

Bill Wright wrote:

Trying to prove black is white doesn't sound like Alf Gartnett to me.

Indeed, and is only likely to lead to a nasty accident when using a Zebra
Crossing.

(RIP Douglas Adams)



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On 18 Sep, 18:59, "Bill Wright" wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...



"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.

Bill

You've obviously never met George Michael then.

--
Halmyre

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head there! None of this has anything
relevant to say about whether you should switch off at the socket or not.

sTeveT

Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


Then you have completely misuderstood relativity.

I'm still waiting for you to refute the Wikipedia article I cited...

No?

Methinks Norman has a brother. Half brother perhaps. A brother who owns a
hacksaw? And a prius.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because the
subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles slow
down and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it

It has internal resistance. A completely different effect.

Its getting hot, so the molecules are moving faster so its getting more mass
according to you.

and where the
energy is coming from as you (or claim to be) are putting all the
particles into a lower energy state to reduce their mass.


Well you have just said it. That is where all the energy is coming from.
Both to drive the load and make the battery hot.

But a hot battery is moving more so it must be more massive than before.
How can it be more massive if its supplying the energy?
According to you you have to reduce the mass to provide the energy.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of the
orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass as
anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.



That's because they are stationary with respect to the car. If they were
measuring from somewhere else, it would.

You dont understand vectors either..

I do, you don't appear to though.
The car doesn't have different energy just because I move but it does have
different mass according to your use of Einstein's e=mc2.

The car doesn't have different energy just because I move but it does
have different mass according to your use of Einstein's e=mc2.

Doesn't E=mc^2 onlu apply to items at rest?

You need to divide by sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:03:36 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

there is no reason whatsoever to assume that pure carbon in the form
of charcoal would work in any similar way.

Yes there is. Read some scientific papers on the adsorption of CO2
by active carbon eg

http://www.sciencedirect.COM/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7W6T-4M6SGRN-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVer sion=0&_userid=10&md5=87da7237d2f2cab28c62974b62ad 2ebe

but before you do that, you really need to learn some basic surface
chemistry / physics.






In fact it all seems rather unlikely to me. But
who am I to criticise what the greenies say is the truth?

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:03:36 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

there is no reason whatsoever to assume that pure carbon in the form
of charcoal would work in any similar way.

Yes there is. Read some scientific papers on the adsorption of CO2
by active carbon eg

http://www.sciencedirect.COM/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7W6T-4M6SGRN-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVer sion=0&_userid=10&md5=87da7237d2f2cab28c62974b62ad 2ebe

but before you do that, you really need to learn some basic surface
chemistry / physics.

I'm well up in those things already actually.

What you need, though, is to appreciate the difference between activated
carbon and sticks of charcoal shoved in the ground.

Do come back when you do.

J G Miller wrote:

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of
Las Vegas would not be possible?

I went on a tour at the hoover dam aged 14 and one of the things the
guide said was that Vegas didn't get it's power from them and "They pay
a pretty price for those pretty lights".

It was nearly 30 years ago though, so it may be different now.