Norman Wells wrote:
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?


No, but then unlike you, I don't make a habit of doing that.


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?

Its not a question of belief: Either you accept Einstein's theories as
the best we have,, and as far as we know correct so far, or you don't.

WE aren't saying that is what we BELIEVE, we are saying that is what the
theory implies.

mass change with potential energy change of ANY sort is IMPLICIT in the
theory of relativity.

Its not me you are arguing with, its Einstein, his theory, and those who
accept it as if not Truth, certainly the best approximation so far.

So, was Einstein wrong? If you think so, don't argue with ME, write a
learned paper and show repeatable experimental procedures that can
refute it, and if, after peer review, it proves to be refutable, take
your Nobel prize.

However, I think citing a badly written line from an out of date
dictionary, won't actually get you very far.

Norman Wells wrote:
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.


Well there you thought wrong.

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.


F=ma.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:41:13 +0100, Andy Burns 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

"(3) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he
obstructs or interferes with an employee of a fire and rescue
authority taking action authorised under this section. "

Telling Mr Fireman to "f* off" wouldn't work but letting them in and
showing that there is no fire so the fire officer can't "reasonably
believe[s] a fire to have broken out or to be about to break out, for
the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or protecting
life or property;". Which means he loses his right to do and go where
ever he desires using any means at his disposal.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Natural Philosopher 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 ;-)

I was simply pointing out that the article cited,
from which I took the radius of the sun and the centre of mass,
did not support the view it was held to support.

--
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 21/09/09 10:04, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:41:13 +0100, Andy Burns 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

"(3) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he
obstructs or interferes with an employee of a fire and rescue
authority taking action authorised under this section. "

Telling Mr Fireman to "f* off" wouldn't work but letting them in and
showing that there is no fire so the fire officer can't "reasonably
believe[s] a fire to have broken out or to be about to break out, for
the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or protecting
life or property;". Which means he loses his right to do and go where
ever he desires using any means at his disposal.

That was what I meant by reasoning with them, rather than attempting to
prevent them.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:59:06 +0100, Derek Geldard wrote:

If you are being charitable you say the banks took a gamble on the
asset values continuing to rise and by the time the debt was due
their value would cover it. A gamble they lost big time.

Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?

Maybe not on the UK private house mortgage business but many if not
all have at least some "toxic assets". The biggest chucks of which
we, as taxpayers, now "own" which includes chuncks from banks that
only took the bailouts rather than being nationalised.

They may have potentially lost on B. T. L. mortgages but these
customers had been paying premium interest rates for their business.

They may have being paying premium interest rate but note the tense.
The past tense. The problem comes from those who have defaulted on
the mortgage meaning the the income and capital payments on the loans
have stopped. The bank is now lumbered with a loan of $x but an asset
only worth $y. This isn't normally a problem as y is normally greater
than x. Trouble comes when x is greater than y.

--
Cheers
Dave.

John Rumm
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 10:29


I think he is maintaining that the number of atoms does not change, only
that the mass of those atoms changes.



He doesn't believe Einstein - what chance have we got?

8-|

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

Tim W wrote:
John Rumm
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 10:29


I think he is maintaining that the number of atoms does not change, only
that the mass of those atoms changes.



He doesn't believe Einstein - what chance have we got?


Philsophically he doesn't have to believe. Either Einstein has a better
view than Newton, or he hasn't. What you cannot do, is say that each
applies in different circumstances.

They are both universal theories, held to apply to everything, everywhere.


8-|

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


You still haven't come up with any evidence that e=mc2 actually shows that
all stored energy is mass as you claim.
In fact hydro electric plants show the opposite..
when you run the water down through the turbine it gets hotter so the same
water at the bottom has actually gained energy according to e=mc2. This
means that the potential energy stored by the water can't have been due to
the atoms moving faster and having energy due to any sort of relativistic
effects as they are moving faster after the energy has been released.
You really do not understand much about it at all and insist on fitting
abstract mathematical models on to systems where they do not apply.


Ok explain this..

Take a simple beam balance.
Take two equal masses of something.
Take two 1m lengths of identical string.

Now tie one mass to one side of the beam.
Now double the string and tie the other mass to the beam.

One mass is now higher than the other, more energy, it has more "mass"
according to you.
Will it still balance?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:45:48 +0100, Jerry wrote:

: The planet will look after itself in the long term, but that may
well
: mean that we won't have suitable conditions for survival, with or
: without technology.

Well that's a mute point, if man can survive in outer space, the
actual question will be how many could survive using the same
sort of technology here on earth, as long as the building blocks
of life survive then so could man...

Space technology requires huge inputs from earth and isn't self
sustainable.

I agree though that the planet would have to get into a very bad
state to completely wipe out the human race. It may mean going back
to living in caves as hunter/gatherers but we've done that. And for
the first hundred years or so there would be an awful lot of useful
stuff lying around to use and from which to make decent tools (not
that flint axes wern't decent).

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
John Rumm
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 10:29


I think he is maintaining that the number of atoms does not change, only
that the mass of those atoms changes.



He doesn't believe Einstein - what chance have we got?


Philsophically he doesn't have to believe. Either Einstein has a better
view than Newton, or he hasn't. What you cannot do, is say that each
applies in different circumstances.

They are both universal theories, held to apply to everything, everywhere.

No they are not.

dennis@home
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 11:28



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

They are both universal theories, held to apply to everything,
everywhere.

No they are not.

Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I read
to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in there.

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

"Tim W" wrote in message
...


Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I read
to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in there.

If you think relativity is universal explain why quantum mechanics is
needed.
Explain why Hawkins was trying to create a "universal theory" for most of
his life.
Explain why you think you are cleverer than Hawkins.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


You still haven't come up with any evidence that e=mc2 actually shows
that all stored energy is mass as you claim.
In fact hydro electric plants show the opposite..
when you run the water down through the turbine it gets hotter so the
same water at the bottom has actually gained energy according to e=mc2.
This means that the potential energy stored by the water can't have been
due to the atoms moving faster and having energy due to any sort of
relativistic effects as they are moving faster after the energy has been
released.
You really do not understand much about it at all and insist on fitting
abstract mathematical models on to systems where they do not apply.


Ok explain this..

Take a simple beam balance.
Take two equal masses of something.
Take two 1m lengths of identical string.

Now tie one mass to one side of the beam.
Now double the string and tie the other mass to the beam.

One mass is now higher than the other, more energy, it has more "mass"
according to you.
Will it still balance?



Infinitesimally, no.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
John Rumm
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 10:29


I think he is maintaining that the number of atoms does not change,
only
that the mass of those atoms changes.



He doesn't believe Einstein - what chance have we got?


Philsophically he doesn't have to believe. Either Einstein has a
better view than Newton, or he hasn't. What you cannot do, is say that
each applies in different circumstances.

They are both universal theories, held to apply to everything,
everywhere.

No they are not.


Oh dear.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim W" wrote in message
...


Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I
read
to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in there.

If you think relativity is universal explain why quantum mechanics is
needed.
Explain why Hawkins was trying to create a "universal theory" for most
of his life.
Explain why you think you are cleverer than Hawkins.


A theory may be universally applicable but not cover all the bases.


For example 'all birds have brains' is universal, but not applicable to
Dennis. Who is not a bird.

Mass and energy are fundamental properties - actually *one* fundamental
property - of stuff. They are not the only properties though.

Were you born this thick, or did you have to devote a lifetime to
becoming so?

brightside S9 wrote:

If it is not moving in your non accelerating frame of reference then
its mass is its "rest mass". So if you pull up the weight of a cuckoo
clock, the weights mass is the same before and after the movement.

I think you have to tell The Natural Philosopher that. He seems to think
that its mass is greater in its raised position.

brightside S9 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:07:38 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
brightside S9 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:45:52 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to
define 'mass' and give a source for the definition he uses. Every
time he has been unable to do even that. On the other hand, I gave
the definition I use and quoted the source. So, please don't
accuse me of not doing so.

He is unable to do so, because, as yet, it is an unanswerable
question. Now you are either smart enough to know that, or not.

Are you smart enough to know or not?

Don't be ridiculous. He uses the term, so he should know what it
means and be able to define it.

Einstein used the term too. It's what the m in e=mc^2 represents.
I dare say he knew what it meant. But now you come along and say he
must have been mistaken because it's an unanswerable question.

Does that make you smarter than him, or just wrong?

Neither smarter nor wrong, just offering you a hole to dig in, or do
some Googling, you chose another hole!

Einstein used the classical definiton of mass - the *property* of a
body that gives it weight in a gravitaional field.

Oh, so he did understand what it meant, but now you say it's an unanswerable
question. That makes you smarter than Einstein then.

Congratulations.

Later the zoo of subatomic particles was discovered. To make sense of
these the "Standard Model" was proposed, but it leaves the question
of mass unresolved. Peter Higgs postulated the Higgs field and the
Higgs boson to solve it. CERN may find the Higgs boson, and then we
will know what mass is, otherwise back to square 1.

You mean, let's fudge the definition of mass to fit the result we achieve.

Doesn't sound like the sort of scientific method most reputable scientitsts
adopt.

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


"Tim W" wrote in message
...


Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I
read
to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in there.

If you think relativity is universal explain why quantum mechanics is
needed.
Explain why Hawkins was trying to create a "universal theory" for most of
his life.
Explain why you think you are cleverer than Hawkins.


A theory may be universally applicable but not cover all the bases.


For example 'all birds have brains' is universal, but not applicable to
Dennis. Who is not a bird.

Mass and energy are fundamental properties - actually *one* fundamental
property - of stuff. They are not the only properties though.

Were you born this thick, or did you have to devote a lifetime to becoming
so?

You are the one that is so thick that you claim all stored energy results in
an increase in mass.
It doesn't.
You cannot apply a mathematical formula to all cases just because you want
to and expect everyone to agree, Some of us understand the limitations, you
obviously do not.

Have you explained the hydro electric problem I set earlier yet?
The one where you drop some water down a pipe, extract some energy from it,
heat it up due to friction, etc.
End up with more thermal energy in the same water and hence more mass using
E=mc2, yet you claim the water had more mass before the water was used.

No I thought not.
When you can explain it let me know, until then I will just have to accept
you don't have a clue.
I think you should stick with philosophy, you are cr@p at that too, but at
least you can't be wrong.

John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to preclude
any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically linked with
time dilation), and time dilation is something that has been
observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics would
have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know what it
means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what I choose it to
mean - neither more nor less".

So, what is mass? What is your definition?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
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.

Well there you thought wrong.

Yes, of course. Does Matron know you're out?


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.


F=ma.

Ah, Newton's second law, I believe.

I thought you'd moved on from classical Newtonian mechanics.

It's quite true of course, but how does it help?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

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.

They're the only premises we've got. You see, you haven't provided any
alternative viable definition, despite having been asked several times.


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.

So you say, so you say. But since you've given no viable alternative
definition, so mine is the best.


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.

You said there was no difference between energy and mass. How do I get to
London using the energy of a 50g lump of lead? Serious question based on
_your_ propositions. Can you support them or not?


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.

Er, sorry, but that isn't a definition. It's a formula in which it appears.
To know what a formula means, you must know first how all the symbols in it
are defined.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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?

Intra-molecular conformation for one thing. If, for example, you have two
long molecules that are intertwined, it will take some force to separate
them. That's nothing to do with the molecules themselves but their physical
arrangement or conformation. Iron and steels vary in their springiness
because of their crystalline structures. What you're observing are
physical, macro effects.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Whereas of course just a few hours ago, you were claiming it as a product of
a nuclear reactor at the earth's core, saying:

"Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else would
all the radon come from?"

What do you know?

Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to preclude
any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically linked with
time dilation), and time dilation is something that has been
observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics would
have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know what
it means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what I choose
it to mean - neither more nor less".

So, what is mass? What is your definition?


This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over
what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:59:37 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:50:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.
The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant.
The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't
enough to cover the debt on it.

If you are being charitable you say the banks took a gamble on the
asset values continuing to rise and by the time the debt was due
their value would cover it. A gamble they lost big time.


Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?


Yes. And still are.


Ahh, they're pulllin' your leg.

IIRC most of the banks are still making a profit, albeit less than
before the bubble burst.

Nowadays they're charging high interest rates on loans and giving low
interest rates on investments so that they can recapitalise. Taxpayers
will also be paying through the nose for the foreseeable future to cut
government borrowing. Seems like we're going to be paying for this
fiasco twice over.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

dennis@home
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 11:52



"Tim W" wrote in message
...


Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I
read to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in there.

If you think relativity is universal explain why quantum mechanics is
needed.

Both relativity and Newtonian mechanics purport to be "universal" in that
they are deemed to apply throughout the known Universe. The fact that after
each one, quirks became apparent suggests that they are both approximations
does not affect their "universallness". Newtonian mechanics is just as
valid today for non relativistic and non quantum scenarios as it was when
Newton proposed it, and it's valid here, on the moon and Alpha Centuri -
that's a perfectly valid use of the term "universal".

F=ma etc is assumed to be as good an approximation anywhere in the entire
universe in "normal" (macroscopic low gravity low relativistic speeds)
space. Ditto time dialation, E=mc2, and all things General Relativity in
high speed/high acceleration scenarios.

Explain why Hawkins was trying to create a "universal theory" for most of
his life.

The goal of course is to find an all encompassing theory that is not an
approximation under any circumstances - past precedent suggests that is
less likely to be an attainable gaol - ie the next theory might well turn
out to be a (better) approximation. It's another use of the
word "universal" - not the one I believe the PP meant.

Explain why you think you are cleverer than Hawkins.

I didn't make that claim. You did - thanks for the compliment

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

dennis@home
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 12:24



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


"Tim W" wrote in message
...


Dennis, shut up - don't make me put you in the "posters whose posts I
read
to laugh at the stupidity of some members of my species" group in my
newsreader. It's already active enough with Dribble and Norman in
there.

If you think relativity is universal explain why quantum mechanics is
needed.
Explain why Hawkins was trying to create a "universal theory" for most
of his life.
Explain why you think you are cleverer than Hawkins.


A theory may be universally applicable but not cover all the bases.


For example 'all birds have brains' is universal, but not applicable to
Dennis. Who is not a bird.

Mass and energy are fundamental properties - actually *one* fundamental
property - of stuff. They are not the only properties though.

Were you born this thick, or did you have to devote a lifetime to
becoming so?

You are the one that is so thick that you claim all stored energy results
in an increase in mass.
It doesn't.
You cannot apply a mathematical formula to all cases just because you want
to and expect everyone to agree, Some of us understand the limitations,
you obviously do not.

Have you explained the hydro electric problem I set earlier yet?
The one where you drop some water down a pipe, extract some energy from
it, heat it up due to friction, etc.
End up with more thermal energy in the same water and hence more mass
using E=mc2, yet you claim the water had more mass before the water was
used.

No I thought not.
When you can explain it let me know, until then I will just have to accept
you don't have a clue.
I think you should stick with philosophy, you are cr@p at that too, but at
least you can't be wrong.

I'll give you some credit Dennis - at least you *can* be bothered to
construct an argument unlike "some people"...

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Tell me, what mass has been created, not its quantity but its nature.

No additional atoms or sub-atomic particles are created.

The mass of each and every sub-atomic particle that has mass is increased
however.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.

That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).

The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that contains
as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions, electrons)
as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).

Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of the
number of elementary particles.










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?

Stuart Noble
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 12:58


This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over
what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

I'm certainly not an expert, just a graduate (I "do" sysadmin work and
programming for a living when I'm not cursing builders and getting covered
in brick dust). I just did a course in Special Relativity[1]. It's not that
hard, mathematically - you can knock out a "proof"[2] of E=mc2 with A Level
maths on 2 sides of A4.

[1] Taught by a very clever chap, Dr Keesing. The sort of bloke who would
wait for the tutor group to grasp Lorentz contraction (you get shorter in
the direction you travel at speed, relative to an observer in another frame
of reference, and vice versa). Then he would set up a scenario:

"A cyclist cycles round a big circle with metre rules laid out around the
circumference and metre rules laid on one radius line to the centre. The
cyclist has a metre rule. He compares his rule to the circumferential and
radial rules and all are the same.

He now speeds up to nearly the speed of light. The radial rules still
compare to his, but he notices the circumferential rules seem to be getting
shorter compared to his one. This means that C=2*PI*r no longer applies.
Why might this be".

Student: "Because space is curving"

Him: "Yes - that's right. Although it's actually becoming parabolic"

All of our brains: "pop"

OK - that crosses into General Relativity - Special was too boring for him I
think, he couldn't wait to get to the good stuff...

[2] The hard bit, which makes Einstein and his mates so bloody clever was
coming up with the initial suppositions that such formulae are derived
from.

General Relativity, however has sodding difficult maths, I gave up on that
though I found it conceptually fascinating.


--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:58:51 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:

This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over
what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

The politest description of much of this thread might be Newtonian v.
Einsteinian physics.

Newtonian physics is good for about 99.99% of what we observe & do as
humans.

Einsteinian physics starts to "kick in" at the extremes. Much of the
physics in this area is still theoretical & difficult to fully grasp with
a strong mathematical background and this is the reason for "discussions"
amongst scientists. Significant sums of money are going into test these
theories with things like the LIGO gravity wave detector and the Large
Hadron Collider.

This is where I duck

BW

On Sep 20, 6:30*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:
"rosie" wrote in message

...
:
snip
:
: I only posted this to give him *a clue.
:

Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".

If you want to dish it out to others for simple typos (e.g. my typing
"the nones" instead of "the ones" afew days ago) then you need to be
able to take it on the chin when others pick you up for your gaffes
such as "winter equinox", "it's self", "mute point", etc.

If you do suffer from dyslexia then I sympathise, but it only makes
your behaviour even less understandable.

MBQ

On Sep 21, 3:07*am, 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?

Why do you think they had to fake the moon landings ;-)

MBQ

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:22:33 +0100, Paul Martin
wrote:

In article ,
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.

It is also normal that the good weather breaks shortly after the equinox.

And that good weather never occurs in the school holidays.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
om...

This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over what
appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I may
have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring their
credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people like me an
insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

There is no disagreement with the fundamental laws or the equations
governing them (well not in this thread).
There are a group who think the equations are universal and a group that
think they are not.
So far the group that don't think they are universal have posted stuff that
the "universal" group can't or won't explain. other than to state they are
universal so must apply.

There are a lot of scientists and mathematicians trying to produce a
universal model ATM, the latest attempt is called string theory. They
wouldn't be doing this if the others were universal would they?
What the "universal" group are saying is that the people working on string
theory aren't as clever as they are as the existing maths is universal.

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for yourself if
you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for energy at a whim.

You will notice that at least one problem they are working on is the fact
that relativity tends not to work unless you ignore the effect of gravity
(http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3.html). Something you can't
do in the real world even if you are TNP.
The reality is that this is not an argument between experts at all.

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

I'll give you some credit Dennis - at least you *can* be bothered to
construct an argument unlike "some people"...

Its not hard when you know that the weakest point of general relativity is
gravity. ;-)

In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However most scientists even today working outside the field of
physics don't have more than a hazy understanding of relativity, so
you find plenty of folks who think like Norman, that relativity
doesn't apply outside of nuclear situations. Not that he is in any
sense a scientist, or scientifically trained.

Nevertheless, it does.

No it doesn't except where mass and energy are actually interconverted,
which does not happen as a matter of normal physical operations which
just effect energy-energy conversions.

As 'Natural Philosopher' has been trying to explain to you: According to
general relativity mass and energy are simply two ways to observe the same
fundamental property. So if any system gains energy it also gains mass. if
you disagree with that you are rejecting one of the axioms of general
relativity.

Been some years since I read it, but if you doubt this, go and read
'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. If you can cope with the maths
it should explain it to you. IIRC The smaller book by Berry also dealt with
this, but I can't recall as it was ages ago I read that as well.

You say that if I raise a lump of lead against the force of gravity, it
gains potential energy and therefore mass. Tell me, what mass has been
created, not its quantity but its nature. Is it electrons, neutrons,
protons, complete atoms or what? If it's complete atoms of lead, please
tell me how the energy knows to create atoms of lead, ie each with 82
protons, 122 neutrons and 82 electrons, rather than any other atoms. If
it's other atoms, is it not the case that sufficient raises and
lowerings of the block will eventually change its chemical composition?

Actually it is that every atom, electron, or other 'particle' in the system
tends to gain intertial mass by an amount that sums to the total increase
in energy of the system when you take the c-squared factor into account.

This is linked to effects like atomic clocks based on level transitions
altering their output. which are easily measured these days if you have the
kit and have a clue. So yes, people have measured this via application of
general relativity, and measured the effect on the atoms and molecules.
Look up the papers in the journals if you want to know, rather than refuse
to accept ot.

I can't help it if you don't understand all this or refuse to accept it,
though. Afraid that's your problem, not one for physics. So far as I know,
you aren't a university academic mis-teaching poor students and confusing
them about this. So it is none of my concern if you refuse to accept what
'Natural Philosopher' keeps trying - remarkably patiently - to tell you.
:-)

BTW A distinction I think may have got missed earler was between fission
and chain-reaction/stimulated fission. Yes, 'natural' decays like those
that generate radon naturally are, indeed, 'fission'. But an engineered
reactor or bomb tends to also exploit other effects that stimulate fission.
e.g. a chain reaction. And no, that doesn't mean it has to explode. To
understand why, feel free to learn some Nuclear Physics. :-)

That's my 2p worth. I'll get back to doing something useful. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:29:33 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

however the relativistic difference in mass (approx 1x10^-16 kg), is
dwarfed by the effects of the variation in gravitational field caused by
the 1m height differential, so the experiment is fatally flawed before
you begin.

Which is greater in effect on the balance loads at a difference of 1 m high --
the gravitational field difference or the atmospheric buoyancy?

Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to preclude
any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically linked with
time dilation), and time dilation is something that has been
observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics would
have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know what
it means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what I choose
it to mean - neither more nor less".

The very point I made to you.

So, what is mass? What is your definition?


The property of an object that leads to its inertia.