"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the mass
that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you can do that
with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But those calculations
only have any significance or relevance if what you're doing is actually
converting mass into energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually
converted into energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions
and radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it will
get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it will
be an impurity in the heating element unless it becomes the same element. If
it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your
heart out TNP has invented the replicator.

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Do you deny the existence of atoms, because they are undetectable in
your home?

Brownian motion?

Unfortunately my scanning tunnelling electron microscope is in my other
trousers.

I prefer my atomic force microscope, its usb powered.

dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever you
may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news : Jerry wrote:
: "rosie" wrote in message
: ...
:
: snip
:
: I only posted this to give him a clue.
:
:
: Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".
:
: Oh God, have we got to make allowances for the backward too?
:

Yes, we are all making allowances for you...

Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

"rosie" wrote in message
...
:
snip
:
: diagnosis from a professional point of view is that...

....you're a worthless Usenet troll?

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


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the mass
that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you can do
that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But those
calculations only have any significance or relevance if what you're
doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa. And mass
is not actually converted into energy on earth in any processes except
nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same element. If it becomes the same element you
could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented
the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

I have describe energy storage systems where that is plainly untrue.
You have failed to show how these work despite your claim that all energy
storage increases mass.
Here is another that you won't be able to explain...

dinorwic pumps a mass of water up to the top of the hill, then it lets it
down again.
The water at the top isn't hotter, in fact its probably colder after its
been stored for a day in winter.
Now tell me where this extra relativistic mass is.

Stephen wrote:

In reality there are lots of sites where unexpected shudowns cause
issues (data centres, hospitals ?).

also many sites where power continuity is critical have backup
generators - now those really are inefficient compared.


Data centres tend to have battery UPS-es at the least, and usually
generators. When your entire business model relies on keeping those
computers going you take care of them.

Andy

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
... if and only if you are living in cold regions....
You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?


Yes, but not often. For most of the year we are heating our homes;
domestic air conditioning is rarely fitted, and even less often required.

Andy

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology, mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'. That
must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the body
contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it follows that,
however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly the same mass as it
always had, because it always contains the same number of atoms.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating, you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created, and
whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or different
(in which case what?).


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass, namely that mass,
ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is converted into mass,
it must be converted into atoms or at least sub-atomic particles. What
atoms? What sub-atomic particles?

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news
Jerry wrote:
"rosie" wrote in message
...

snip

I only posted this to give him a clue.


Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".

Oh God, have we got to make allowances for the backward too?


Yes, we are all making allowances for you...

Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

Is it only the exceptionally brilliant then?

No, it can't be that. How can it be if it includes you?

"Jerry" wrote


Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

Hmm. Many experts in this field believe that Einstein fell within
the autistic spectra. Asperger's syndrome, to be specific.

Quite the opposite of being a bad speller. A bloody good speller,
in fact.

If speaking the truth equates to being a troll, then so be it.
Suck it up, sonny.

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the interaction
of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or helium
nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops the atomic
number by one.

With fission the neutron makes the nucleus unstable and it splits into
smaller fragments, each usually much larger than alpha. It also releases
some high speed neutrons.

Only people like TNP would claim them to be the same.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:


Wrong. You're working from his equation, assuming that it applies to
all events involving energy transfer when it doesn't.

Ah. So Einsteins theory of relativity is not applicable to anything
and everything in the world?

Depends which bit of it you're talking about. His formula e=mc^2
certainly isn't though.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states it quite clearly

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#1.1

Section 1.2.1:

"In this example, the novel claim made by special relativity is that the
inertial mass of a physical system changes when the system either absorbs
or emits energy. No such change occurs according to pre-relativistic
physics. In pre-relativistic physics, the inertial mass of the gold bar,
i.e., the bar's tendency to resist changes in velocity, is the same at all
temperatures."

If an edited publication from Stanford University isn't good enough for you,
perhaps you'll take it from the original author:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Norman - perhaps you would be so kind and either put up or shut up.

Or would you prefer a discussion on why the earth isn't flat?


DO tell. The scientific community is waiting with bated breath to
hear this.

No they're not. They know it already.

dennis@home wrote:


"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?


Martin

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?

Sorry you are correct that was a typo.



Martin

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:05:41 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

It's been a lovely few days. We call it an 'Indian Summer' when it's nice at
this time of year. The sky is blue, there is very little wind, and the fruit
trees are laden with nature's bounteous harvest.

I stuffed my gob with blackberries this afternoon (not the ones that cost
£2.19 for a pack of 8 from the supermarket).
I'll probably feel the effects tomorrow!

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:50:48 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

This is all fine and good until something goes wrong. A well-known UK
ISP had all this in place in one of their datacentres. Unfortunately,
their diesel generator's exhaust vented into the street. A passing
member of the public thought the exhaust fumes were smoke and called
the fire brigade, who turned up and told the operators to shut
everything down.

"There's no fire here Mr. Fire Brigade man. Now f* off."

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:02:56 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Matter is not converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at
the extremes.

Where does "the extremes" start then?
That seems somewhat unlikely... nothing "at all" until some point where
it all starts.

Fleetie wrote:

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

It is always within the Sun. As one would intuitively expect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycen...nd_astronom y

Does that say the centre of mass of the solar system lies within the sun?
As I read it, it says the centre of mass of the sun and jupiter
is a little outside the sun (742,000 km from the centre of the sun,
which has radius 696,000 km).
This seems to imply that the centre of mass of the solar system
is usually, if not always, just outside the sun.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor
of several thousand to one at least.

You need to take note of the distinction between radioactive decay when
a nucleus spontaneously breaks down into something smaller, and fission
which occurs when a nucleus is hit by a particle which then results in it
breaking down into other elements.

As to whether fission, rather than just spontaneous decay, occurs in nature
there is evidence

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.EDU/HBASE/nucene/fiscon.html

QUOTE
Nature's Nuclear Fission Reactor

In what is now Gabon in west Africa in 1972, French researchers found a
deposit of uranium which had only 0.44% U-235 compared to the normal 0.72%.
This indicated that some of the U-235 had undergone spontaneous nuclear
fission at some point in the past.
UNQUOTE

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:49:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
I believe that we should try everything once except
incest and morris dancing.

Suicide?

The thing about suicide though, is that if you try it properly,
you only get to try it once.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.

Bill

dennis@home wrote:


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


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same element. If it becomes the same element
you could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your heart out TNP has
invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

I have describe energy storage systems where that is plainly untrue.

No, you have not.

You have failed to show how these work despite your claim that all
energy storage increases mass.

That is a fundamental DEFINITION of what energy and mass are, in
Einsteins worldview.

It cannot be explained in a Newtonian worldview.

Any more than light being bent by gravity can.

This is why Einstein developed his view.


Here is another that you won't be able to explain...

dinorwic pumps a mass of water up to the top of the hill, then it lets
it down again.
The water at the top isn't hotter, in fact its probably colder after its
been stored for a day in winter.
Now tell me where this extra relativistic mass is.

In the mass of the water.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

Radon is a decay product of radium. Radon is the most common source of
radioactivity on the planet's surface.

dennis@home wrote:


"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

With fission the neutron makes the nucleus unstable and it splits into
smaller fragments, each usually much larger than alpha. It also releases
some high speed neutrons.

Only people like TNP would claim them to be the same.


They are both nuclear fission, and both release energy.

Fleetie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.
With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.
With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?


Don't expect Dennis to have correctly remembered what he just read on wiki.


Martin

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of Science
and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly the
same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same number
of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how they
appear to you.

namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is converted
into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least sub-atomic
particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles have
fixed masses. They don't.

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Fleetie wrote:

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.
It is always within the Sun. As one would intuitively expect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycen...nd_astronom y

Does that say the centre of mass of the solar system lies within the sun?
As I read it, it says the centre of mass of the sun and jupiter
is a little outside the sun (742,000 km from the centre of the sun,
which has radius 696,000 km).
This seems to imply that the centre of mass of the solar system
is usually, if not always, just outside the sun.

Ah, but where does the sun 'end'

The solar 'atmosphere' extends a long way out ;-)

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

Best guess. Same as humanity has always done.

WE don't KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it always has, so we
expect it will, this time. On time as usual..in fact our concept of time
probably arises from noting this fact.

Bill Wright wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.
Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.
OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.


And how does it get to be that way without reference to its molecular
constituents?

Bill

On 20/09/09 23:19, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:50:48 +0100, Paul wrote:

This is all fine and good until something goes wrong. A well-known UK
ISP had all this in place in one of their datacentres. Unfortunately,
their diesel generator's exhaust vented into the street. A passing
member of the public thought the exhaust fumes were smoke and called
the fire brigade, who turned up and told the operators to shut
everything down.

"There's no fire here Mr. Fire Brigade man. Now f* off."

By all means try to reason with them, but be aware of

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004...#pt6-pb1-l1g44

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And
you can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any
time. But those calculations only have any significance or
relevance if what you're doing is actually converting mass into
energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually converted into
energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions and
radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc
etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source like
that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you numerous times to
provide the definition of mass that you use and give its source and, every
time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're asking us to dismiss an
established definition and replace it with, well, what exactly? Something
woolly and undefined with no scientific foundation which you just state
supports your case when there is no justification for that at all.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway, I
though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.


How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly
the same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same
number of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass that we
have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology,
mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you increase the
quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its mass.

That's logic, see?

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases with
heating.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the definition of
mass.


Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of energy
there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was chemical energy, I
could easily release that and convert it into kinetic energy, like I do in a
car. But how do I do it with a lump of lead? Should be easy enough if it's
energy already surely.



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly say
that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads logically and
inevitably to the fact that they do.

Tim S wrote:
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:


Wrong. You're working from his equation, assuming that it applies
to all events involving energy transfer when it doesn't.

Ah. So Einsteins theory of relativity is not applicable to anything
and everything in the world?

Depends which bit of it you're talking about. His formula e=mc^2
certainly isn't though.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states it quite clearly

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#1.1

Section 1.2.1:

"In this example, the novel claim made by special relativity is that
the inertial mass of a physical system changes when the system either
absorbs or emits energy. No such change occurs according to
pre-relativistic physics. In pre-relativistic physics, the inertial
mass of the gold bar, i.e., the bar's tendency to resist changes in
velocity, is the same at all temperatures."

'Inertial mass'. Is that the same as 'mass'? If so, why do we need two
different terms for it? If not, why do we have to invent a new definition?

When I come across something like this, especially in connection with
something so basic as 'mass', it always seems as if someone is trying to
fiddle the facts to fit the conclusions he's already reached. Doesn't it to
you?


If an edited publication from Stanford University isn't good enough
for you, perhaps you'll take it from the original author:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Norman - perhaps you would be so kind and either put up or shut up.

Do you not like your prejudiced conclusions questioned then? Or are they
just beliefs with no real foundation?

Java Jive wrote:
I've already pointed out in another post complete with a link to K&L
that this definition of mass is WRONG! What you are using is a
scientifically loose description of it in common parlance, NOT a
definition.

That's strange. I thought dictionaries were there to provide definitions.

And besides, there seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of some here,
to give the definition on which they rely, even when asked several times
over. I think that's because they'll be found out to be fiddling the facts
to fit their conclusions.

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...


I stuffed my gob with blackberries this afternoon (not the ones that cost
£2.19 for a pack of 8 from the supermarket).

I grow my own, but they haven't been as good as usual this year.
It was the cold spell earlier I think.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

snip crap

Do you not like your prejudiced conclusions questioned then? Or are they
just beliefs with no real foundation?

Norman - there really is no other way to say this:

You are either:

a) A troll, though your posting history doesn't indicate this;

b) An introspective bigot;

c) A cretin.

Either way, please **** off until you grow a brain.

plonk...

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium
nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops the atomic
number by [two].

Some also result in a gamma photon. (eg. Cs137 and Co58)

Some emit inverse beta (positrons), which drops the atomic number by
one. (eg. C11 and Ga68)

There are also usually neutrinos or antineutrinos involved.


True, I was only considering natural isotopes rather than stuff created in
reactors.
I don't recall any natural isotopes that do either of those.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

By doing course corrections based on measurement at the time, just like they
did with Apollo.
It is impossible to plot a course at this time as we don't know where all
the objects are in the solar system and each unknown body will have an
unknown effect.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And
you can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any
time. But those calculations only have any significance or
relevance if what you're doing is actually converting mass into
energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually converted into
energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions and
radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc
etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source
like that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you numerous
times to provide the definition of mass that you use and give its source
and, every time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're asking us to
dismiss an established definition and replace it with, well, what
exactly? Something woolly and undefined with no scientific foundation
which you just state supports your case when there is no justification
for that at all.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway, I
though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.


How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly
the same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same
number of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass that
we have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology, mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you
increase the quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its mass.

That's logic, see?


Logic based on false premises is nit the truth.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases with
heating.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the
definition of mass.


It follows from YOUR definition of mass, sure. But that is not the
definition that science in fact uses.



Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of
energy there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was chemical
energy, I could easily release that and convert it into kinetic energy,
like I do in a car. But how do I do it with a lump of lead? Should be
easy enough if it's energy already surely.


Dont be sillier than you have to be.



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly
say that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads
logically and inevitably to the fact that they do.

Sigh. Mass has been defined for you perfectly clearly and simply. It is
the 'm' term in the equation F=ma.