BS: Einstein Question???

Subject: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 07:43 PM

Well, here's one that is really buggin' me... Einstein said that matter can neither be created or destroyed, right???

Okay, if you buy into that then you have to assume if you burn 50 pounds of firewood in yer wood stove that the smoke and ash from those 50 pounds of wood are still 50 pounds of something??? I doubt that???

Where is my thinkin' wrong here???

John in Kansas??? Wanta take a crack at this one???

I'm serious, BTW...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:07 PM

And a pound of cheesecake turns into 5 pounds of me. Matter doesn't go away, but with the addition or subtraction of energy, it can change form. A pound of fat is about 3500 calories. That's the energy. When you burn energy, you do it in ounces and pounds because it doesn't weigh anything. But then it isn't matter anymore, either...

Right... better wait for JiK.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Joe_F
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:15 PM

The statement that you are having trouble with is much older than Einstein, and it is very nearly true. Firewood is mostly cellulose, with a little water. When you burn it, the water evaporates, and then (if it rises into cool air) condenses. The cellulose consists of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon; combining with the oxygen of the air, they produce carbon dioxide and more water. Those materials float, but they have mass, and if you add up the masses, you will indeed find that they are still "50 pounds of something". Lavoisier, in the 18th century, showed that by burning things inside sealed jars; the jar & contents always weighed the same before & after.

Einstein's contribution was to say that the above is not *quite* true. The energy (light & heat) given off also have mass, and if you could weigh the jar very precisely after it had cooled down, you would find that it weighed a little less. The deficit is so tiny (on the order of a part per billion) that it cannot be detected directly, so "matter is conserved" is for practical purposes correct. In nuclear reactions the energies involved are much greater, and the corresponding mass is on the order of a percent and actually shows up as a difference in the measured masses before & after.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:16 PM

Good one, Jeri...

We're gonna work John purdy hard here...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:22 PM

I think Joe done it.

It's nice to have smart people around.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:52 PM

But... it is true... if the "weight" is lost through energy escaping from the jar, then ya gotta account for that in the weighing in.

In any case, I'll raise a jar to Al. Cool dude. I got a life size poster of Al downstairs on a door and always ask, "What's up doc?" when I open it.

Yes, I am an engineer but I AM NOT A NERD! Really, I am not. Well, a bit, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Amos
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 09:17 PM

You have the Bloode of Ye Nerdes running in your veins, young man. Deny it as you will, it will surface and it will tell when the moment is come.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 10:05 PM

A fascinating subject! Matter contains vast amounts of bound-up energy, and as is proven in both ordinary combustion and nuclear fission...small amounts of matter can be converted back into pure energy, but most of the matter involved remains matter, it just changes form.

I supect that the origin of all matter as we know it was once pure energy (before time as we know it began) but that pure energy was condensed at some point into matter by being slowed down into a lower rate of vibration. Thus it became perceivable as matter, and that gave rise to the Universe and the many worlds and phenomena around us.

I suspect that even before that happened, it was all pure potential. Unmanifest. Then pure energy. Manifest. Then a mixture of matter and energy. Manifest. And that's what we have now.

That's a theory of mine. I have no way of proving it, needless to say. ;-)

I was fasinated by the fact that a Guinea Pig I owned could produce amazing amounts of urine...far more urine than the water he was drinking. "How does he do it?" I wondered. Then I realized that he was eating huge amounts of (dry) food...and that his digestive system was breaking down that food through a process of combustion. Eureka! The food was made up of hydrocarbons...hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. The digestive process which broke down the food produced the following byproducts:

1. energy - to keep the Guinea Pig alive and functioning.
2. water - most of which was excreted in the form of urine.
3. carbon compounds - excreted in the form of droppings.

So that's why the G.P. was producing so much more urine than the water he drank from his water bottle. A great deal of it was coming from the dry food he ate. Almost all the actual matter he was consuming was being excreted in a different form...but a small amount of it was being converted back into pure energy, and that was energizing an amazing little living creature. Marvelous how nature works!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 10:26 PM

Okay, LH.... So where did the excess water go??? Into the air??? Did we breathe G.P.'s pee??? Horrors!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 10:54 PM

The exess water? Well, some of it would have continued cycling around in the Guinea Pig's system because his body mass contains a lot of water just like ours does...but most of it got excreted in his urine. Most of the urine then evaporated into the surrounding air eventually, and you got to breathe tiny bits of it a year or two later, Bobert! ;-) Don't feel bad. You are breathing everyone else's spent urine too. Even George Bush's, in fact. It's the Great Circle of Life.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Dec 10 - 10:59 PM

Thanks, JoeF, for making it understandable unlike my high school teacher who was an arse!**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 02:37 AM

Jeez!!!..He wants to tackle a physics question, and still can't see the political forest from the trees, when it comes to the obvious?????

Energy is released through oxidation, and dissipated as heat. The energy was neither created, nor destroyed, but merely changed forms..and if it could be gathered back up, would equal the same mass and density, of its original state..which before it was wood, was....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 03:28 AM

Because E=MC^2 a very tiny, virtually unmeasuraable amount of matter is converted into energy during any energy exchange. In this case the weight of the burned wood is carried off by rising heat in the form of steam and that (H2O) is a major component of wood, yes, even dried (seasoned) wood. The chemical bonds give way to heat and realign as CO2 and various other compounds, the major element being Carbon. If you were to perform an experiement where the burning took place in a sealed glass box resting on a scale you would see that the weight remains unchanged, undetecable.

C^2 is such a vast number that the Hiroshima class atomic bomb annihilated only about 2 grams of matter. The rest was converted into other elements or was vaporized and became the deadly constituent of fallout. The sun is 864, 484 miles in diameter which means an incredible amount of mass is present. In its profligate expenditure of energy it converts about 4 million tons of mass into energy every second. In the solar arena at the distance of Earth, we are struck by the tiniest fraction of the total energy released but that energy, mostly in the form of heat, powers our global climate. If I remember right it averages about 3.2 calories per square centimeter per second.

If you want to do the math yourself, I've given you the Sun's diameter; the Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter (rounded up a few) at an average distance from the Sun of 93,000,000 miles. For ease call it 100 million. The speed of light is 187,262 miles per second. You will need a lot of paper when you square that. Best to use scientific notation.

The Sun will continue to convert mass to energy for another estimated 8 billion years before noticable changes begin to take place but that is another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: eddie1
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 05:05 AM

Einstein also said "Only two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the universe!"

Stephen Fry said this so if he said it, it must be true.

Good to know a part of me is infinite!

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 08:16 AM

"Because E=MC^2 a very tiny, virtually unmeasurable amount of matter is converted into energy during any energy exchange."

Bzzzttt!

That only applies to NUCLEAR changes/reactions - NOT CHEMICAL ONES.

In chemical reactions, SOME of the energy that in contained in chemical bonds may be released as heat energy, or the reverse, some heat may be absorbed.... thus there are two types of chemical reactions: Exo- giving out and Endo- taking in - thermic reactions. No energy is converted to mass or vice versa in these!

This also applies to photosynthesis (plants) and also photovoltaic reactions. No energy is converted to mass or vice versa in these!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 11:23 AM

Foolestroupe is quite correct. In a chemical reaction, most times energy is either absorbed or released. The energy goes to make or to break a chemical bond and tends to be either heat or light depending on the reaction. If it takes a certain amount of energy to create bond, when the bond breaks an equivalent amount of energy is released.
Essentially no matter is created and no energy is created that wasn't already there. It is just moved around a bit.
A plant absorbs energy as light and uses it to convert water plus carbon dioxide from the air into woody tissue. When you put the log on a fire the log turns back to water vapour plus carbon dioxide, and the energy holding it all together is released as heat energy and ends up warming your room.
None of this has anything to do with a nuclear bomb converting mass to energy or Einstein's EE equals EMM SEE Squared, which, If I
recall is something to do with how mass being moved at the speed of light.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 11:53 AM

Yes, Geoff that's true in the pre-relativity physics. But the E=MC^2 argument is there in all physical and chemical reactions, not just when an electron (matter) and a positron (matter) go bang and dissappear to produce a photon of energy. If you heat up anything, its mass will increase according to the famous equation but the ammount is so small that you couldn't measure it. Anything actually moving will have a slighly increased mass because of its kinectic energy; this mass returns to the 'rest mass' once it stops. To take this further at the speed of light a body has infinite mass so cannot accelerate further: you'd need an infinite force to do this. This is why those particles at CERN travel at nearly the speed of light but not at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 12:03 PM

You don't need an infinite force to move a really large man or gorilla in whatever direction you want him to go. You just need to hook two fingers inside his nostrils and PULL! He will go whatever way you want him to, and with only a small amount of force needed. It don't take much energy, just good accuracy and follow-through.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM

WRONG FT! wrong Gduck! Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. If it only an energy exchange (and there is no such thing in physics and an 1:1 exchange) then it would be trues but if work is done there is some miniscule mass lost as heat to the universe. That or rewrite the physics books. Well, maybe you have a point. They are always rewriting physics books. Look in any college bookstore! The trend is always toward the debit side of the ledger in compliance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If you see the universe as closed (finite) then you might have an argument.

Gee, Chongo, you omitted the real work of getting your fingers into that controlling position. I would imagine quite a bit of mass might be lost by one or the other or both parties involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 05:22 PM

Well, that's the whole point, see? Ya gotta be faster than the other guy. The more ya practice the "nose hook" maneuver, the better ya get at it, and I been usin' that move for years.

As ya pointed out, some mass always gets lots as heat in a fight, specially in a longer fight, cos yer gonna sweat some and lose mass that way fer sure. Gruntin', snarlin', and screamin' also causes the loss of a tiny amount of mass in the form of sound energy. On the other hand, you might gain some considerable mass if you absorb a few 45 cal. rounds, right? But then the mass you gained from the hot lead gets lost rapidly as you lose copious amounts of blood. In the end, though, it don't really matter much how it tallies up, cos once you are a stiff, mass don't count for much at all anymore. It just makes the coffin harder to carry.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE
WRONG FT! wrong Gduck! Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. If it only an energy exchange (and there is no such thing in physics and an 1:1 exchange) then it would be trues but if work is done there is some miniscule mass lost as heat to the universe. That or rewrite the physics books.
UNQUOTE

You may be more in touch with the cutting edge Science than I - so please give your documented Research papers url. If not, pardon me if I doubt your claims as mere mysticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 06:37 PM

"I supect that the origin of all matter as we know it was once pure energy (before time as we know it began) but that pure energy was condensed at some point into matter by being slowed down into a lower rate of vibration. "

The Big Bang theory of creation has it that protons neutrons and electrons formed after about a second.
Before that it was indeed just energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 08:00 PM

The problem with Chongz idea of controllin' other people is that in the time he worked for me, which thank Goodness was very short, seems every time I looked at him he has his fingers in his own nose... Guess he was tryin' to control himself??? I donno... Didn't do a very good job of it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Dec 10 - 08:15 PM

Slag -

the reason I ask for supporting documentation is that 'nuclear energy' is based on Quantum Theory - and chemical reactions thus have fixed amounts of 'energy transfer' to create and destroy bonds (and it IS fixed! and identical in both directions!)... and if you start bleeding your 'minute amounts of energy' around, then you either start creating new elements, or all the elements that are considered 'stable' in the Periodic Table, such as Hydrogen, Helium, Argon, Iron, etc al, will all tear apart ...

This does not happen, and can not happen according to current Science, so I say your claim is merely mystical - unless you can refute me with supporting research ....

QUOTE
If you heat up anything, its mass will increase according to the famous equation but the amount is so small that you couldn't measure it.
UNQUOTE

I also challenge this claim in the same way, as being contrary to known Science. Vibrational and Translational energy are not the same - a vibrating object is not going anywhere in Space/Time, so has no 'E=Mc2 interaction'.

Subject: RE: BS: another Einstein Question???
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:01 AM

Bobert, are you are sure these are Einstein's ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:09 AM

Well, now I am totally confused! But still reading!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:28 AM

The Big Bang theory of creation has it that *protons neutrons and electrons formed after about a second.
™Before that it was indeed just energy. Keith A
========
*How?

™But whence the energy, please?

Cf old thread I OP'd a year or more back, "What Went Big Bang?", in which I quoted a Ben Elton novel to effect that this is the kind of question that only StupidPeople ask. I admit that, physics-wise, I am indeed a StupidPerson. But all these physicists are not; they are wise in the xtreme. So why-o-why is it always beyond their wisdom & sagacity to provide any explanation comprehensible to us SP?

〠Michael〠

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:55 AM

weird.. but soothing..

after a life time of rational materialism & agnosticsm
and barely kept under control bleak existentialist despair..

[sex and booze and music and tasty food and a sense of humour does help a bit..]

I'm just recently trying to get my head around the pop condensed reader versions
explaining these new quantum physics theories of multi dimensional existence..

and it does now make me feel more at ease with entering old age
and my inevitable adventure into self identity extinguishing death and subatomic particle recycling beyond..
or back again at the same time.. or sideways back to front inside out.. or oops upside your head...

Say Oops upside your head .....

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:18 AM

FT, I might ask you the same. I will research a little but off the top the Weinberg treatment of the SU broken symmetries seems to me to address the question obliqely. You might refer to his Nobel Prize address 1979 (Elsevier Publishing). Kenneth Ford "Conservation Laws," excerpt in The World of Elementary Particles: Blaisdell Publishing Co. 1963 pp. 81-112. Max Planck did a neat little treatment of the subject of entropy Treatise on Thermodynamics trans. Alexander Ogg. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1903 but of course it doesn't address the quantum factors at this early date. P.W. Bridgman's "Satistical Mechanics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, April 1932 vol. 38 no. 4, pp.225-245, of the American Mathematical Society is a pre-quantum treatment of the subject also. I don't know where My Hawkings stuff is right now nor Einstein. I will check around and see if I can come up with an article that addresses the subject directly.

Hawking does champion the "bleeding" away for everything as you put it and as for vibrations, every measure of energy is about vibrations. From a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, it moves and the reason it (mass) moves is that E=M. Period. Mass is nothing more than (nor nothing less than) a force field.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:29 AM

FT - If you heat something it gains thermal energy and all forms of energy have mass, according to the equation. Therefore the mass increases by an infinitesimal amount. This is not saying that the quantity of matter increases. E=mc^2 not only means the matter can be converted into energy (and vice versa) but also that they are equivalent; in other words both have mass and this means that it will take a slighly great force to throw a hot potato than a cold one.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 07:47 AM

The lack of consideration of the 'quantum question' of course means that these books you quote are now obsoleted, and while an interesting read, thus irrelevant to supporting your claim which relies on more modern concepts, such as Quantum Physics.

Sigh - just like the person who insisted that the original century relatively old works of Helmholtz were also not obsoleted by more recent research, but we dealt with that in another thread ...

The original Einstein writings are now also obsolete too (if indeed they ARE HIS work)...


"all forms of energy have mass, according to the equation"
for translation, not oscillation... for what it may gain in one direction it negates in the opposite direction of the vibration, thus canceling the effect out as it has to come to a stop to reverse the direction of travel .... and electrons now are not considered to obey the obsoleted Bohr model of spinning in a 'sphere', but more advanced concepts I did study many years ago in First Year, and how now largely forgotten, having no daily need to use the info...

Newtons Equations of Motion, although obsoleted by Special Relativity, are still useful for work in the 'macro' field, as the difference at human speeds, is unnoticeable, and largely irrelevant for human actions, as we can also add any needed corrections by hand.

And so since you claim that these differences due to 'vibration' are 'unmeasurable' [and for modern Metrics, that is a pretty big claim (and 'Science' has put forward some pretty big claims before, such as 'Aether' and concepts regarding combustion that did not survive further research)], then the pragmatic view is that they can be ignored for practical purposes, and thus effectively exist only as a form of mysticism.


Please do produce some more recent relevant documents... and the exact quotes you claim to substantiate your claims would also be useful, as anybody can make claims - "FT, I might ask you the same." You are the one making the claim that some concept exists - I am merely saying that nothing I have come across (I am fairly widely read, but accept that I cannot catch everything!) supports this claim. If you do know more than I do, I will happily be educated, but will not just accept mystical claims - this is HOW Science works... :-)

As I said, if the electrons are losing energy all the time, then they MUST over a period of time stop - but they haven't been known to do so (no evidence as yet!) for Billions of Years as yet - and the mere idea that they ARE, contradicts known Science - thus some substantial evidence will be necessary to accept this claim.

QUOTE
if work is done there is some miniscule mass lost as heat to the universe.
UNQUOTE

What 'work' is being done?

QUOTE
That or rewrite the physics books.
UNQUOTE

That is precisely what you are trying to do - ....

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 08:03 AM

"this means that it will take a slightly greater force to throw a hot potato than a cold one. "

Please, if you want to make statements like this, produce the actual Maths (say 100 grams of potato - and to what tolerance you will measure this - the projected velocity - assume terrestrial speeds (say 100 m/s) and tolerance, and the tolerance needed to measure the force) - and then tell me just how we could possibly detect this infinitesimal quantity - which I suspect on the basis of experienced intelligent guesswork will be well below the tolerances and precision of any known measuring instrument - thus the claim becomes 'mystical (theoretical) not 'Scientific' (pragmatic). Current Science that I am aware of, does not claim this (and I have not seen any such maths), but I am willing to learn.

As I said, the difference between Newton and Einstein equations of motion is irrelevant until we start to get very high rates of relative motion. We can now just measure the time dilation effect for 'clocks' in rapidly moving objects.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 08:29 AM

Sheesh, I just wanted to know where the firewood goes when it gets burned and here we have folks arguin' over science stuff???

Guess I'll just stick to music and politics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 08:54 AM

1) get wood, ensure supply of air (for oxygen to cause oxidation)

2) apply initial heat source to promote initial ignition

3) after critical time period, sufficient heat generated in exothermic reactions (heat liberation) to sustain continued exothermic reactions

4) wood, being composed of many different long chain carbon molecules, will gradually be oxidised and broken down into solid particles (ash, smoke) - the lighter particles will be wafted up the chimney.

5) Some vapors (various long chain tars, water) and gases CO2, some CO, maybe some nitrides, depending on your fire

6) Total mass of solids (wood - 50 pounds) and gases BEFORE the fire, will be the same as the total mass of solids and gases AFTER the fire. You just gotta be clever enough to catch them all and weigh them ALL.

The 'heat' comes from the exothermic oxidization process which breaks chemical bonds.

QUOTE
Lavoisier, in the 18th century, showed that by burning things inside sealed jars; the jar & contents always weighed the same before & after.
UNQUOTE


Oh wait - Joe_F said that above in his first paragraph at Date: 26 Dec 10 - 08:15.

All the rest of this thread from his second paragraph on borders on mystical rubbish (Law of Fives!), as far as your desired answer is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 08:56 AM

And I'll just eat the potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Louie Roy
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 01:05 PM

This is similar to the question a barber asked a sailor where does the water go when the tide goes out and the sailor replied the same place your meat goes when you lose an erection

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:03 PM

Einstein may have said it, but he didn`t say it first.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:13 PM

Bobert... get one a them there new fangled wood stoves what burns yer secondary gasses with yer Cadillac Converter riggin friggin. Yer energy is bound to get messed around with a Cadillac, especially with the top down.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:15 PM

If you have any number of nucleons in a nucleus and you weigh each nucleon separately and then add their weights together, the total will be greater than if you weighed the nucleus all at once. Same number of particles--same particles, in fact. So how does this work? Once you figure out the answer (which is easier than it might seem), you get an idea of how things work and why what seems so common-sense on a macrophysical level makes no sense on a microphysical level and vice-versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:27 PM

Weigh Each Nucleon???
Physics and chemistry are based on MASS. Weight is a product of the gravity of the location where the "weighing" takes place.
There is so much bollox going on in this thread. All Bobert wants so know is "where does his log disappear to when he puts it on the fire"
It's pure chemistry and has sod all to do with metaphysics crop circles and fantasy.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 07:10 PM

FT, I'm suprised that you would quote someone as ancient as Lavoisier. What posssible relevance could he have?! Point being, the articles I cited ARE relevant, just not as refined as later observation. Physics of '03, '05 and '39 haven't been disproved, merely refined.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 07:59 PM

Mass or weight makes no difference since gravity acts on them exactly the same way.

Now try it again: why does the nucleus weigh less as a nucleus than the sum of the weights (or mass if you're going get a wild hare up your ass about it) of each individual nucleon in that same nucleus?

If you're so scientific then answer the question instead of slagging it off to "metaphysics crop circles and fantasy". It's pure science. So Geoff the Duck, I charge you to come up with the answer--no one else. Let's see what you really know.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:07 PM

"Mass or weight makes no difference since gravity acts on them exactly the same way."

Gravity only acts on 'Mass' - it cannot act on Weight'. It is already PART of 'weight'. :-)

So you know the answer and will elucidate Josepp?

QUOTE
(or mass if you're going get a wild hare up your ass about it)
UNQUOTE

Nope - in Science the correct (and meaningful) term is 'Mass' - only those pretending to know what they are talking about use the term 'Weight' interchangeably - eg the 'weight' on Mars is different from that on Earth - and there is no 'weight' when in space traveling at a constant velocity (not speed!)...

"I'm surprised that you would quote someone as ancient as Lavoisier."

Some people are easily impressed! Mr Lavoisier's work has not yet been obsoleted. The total mass pf combustion products before and after remains unaltered. Unless you can quote something relevant in the Field of Science ... not occult metaphysics and fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:23 PM

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3

Along with protons, neutrons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The neutron is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two down quarks and one up quark.

A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. The decay of the neutron involves the weak interaction as indicated in the Feynman diagram to the right. This fact is important in models of the early universe. The neutron is about 0.2% more massive than a proton, which translates to an energy difference of 1.29 MeV.

The decay of the neutron is associated with a quark transformation in which a down quark is converted to an up by the weak interaction . The average lifetime of 10.3 min/0.693 = 14.9 minutes is surprisingly long for a particle decay that yields 1.29 MeV of energy. You could say that this decay is steeply "downhill" in energy and would be expected to proceed rapidly. It is possible for a proton to be transformed into a neutron, but you have to supply 1.29 MeV of energy to reach the threshold for that transformation. In the very early stages of the big bang when the thermal energy was much greater than 1.29 MeV, we surmise that the transformation between protons and neutrons was proceeding freely in both directions so that there was an essentially equal population of protons and neutrons.
~~~~~~~~~

So for protons and neutrons to be allowed to stay close together for long periods of time, some of the mass has to be converted into something else that 'glues' the things together.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html
~

Particle Interactions and Conservation Laws
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parint.html#c1

In developing the standard model for particles, certain types of interactions and decays are observed to be common and others seem to be forbidden. The study of interactions has led to a number of conservation laws which govern them. These conservation laws are in addition to the classical conservation laws such as conservation of energy, charge, etc., which still apply in the realm of particle interactions. Strong overall conservation laws are the conservation of baryon number and the conservation of lepton number. Specific quantum numbers have been assigned to the different fundamental particles, and other conservation laws are associated with those quantum numbers.

From another point of view, it would seem that any localized particle of finite mass should be unstable, since the decay into several smaller particles provides many more ways to distribute the energy, and thus would have higher entropy. This idea is even stated as a principle called the "totalitarian principle" which might be stated as "every process that is not forbidden must occur". From this point of view, any decay process which is expected but not observed must be prevented from occuring by some conservation law. This approach has been fruitful in helping to determine the rules for particle decay.

Conservation laws for parity, isospin, and strangeness have been developed by detailed observation of particle interactions. The combination of charge conjugation (C), parity (P) and time reversal (T) is considered to be a fundamental symmetry operation - all physical particles and interactions appear to be invariant under this combination. Called CPT invariance, this symmetry plumbs the depths of our understanding of nature.

Another part of the high energy physicist's toolkit in anticipating what interactions can be expected is "crossing symmetry". Any interaction which is observed can be used to predict other related interactions by "crossing" any particle across the reaction symbol and turning it into it's antiparticle.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:29 PM

If you really want to read some basic stuff about 'Einstein Stuff'
try
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relcon.html#relcon

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:32 PM

OK - saving us all from a lot of maths

Exploring the calculation above will show that you have to reach 14% of the speed of light, or about 42 million m/s before you change the mass by 1%.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c3

As I said mystical irrelevant rubbish for normal Earth Dwellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:36 PM

OK
Problems with variable mass
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c5

Even though circumstances like that described at the Cambridge accelerator are conveniently described by assuming an increasing mass, that is not the only way to describe these experiments, and there are problems with the concept of variable relativistic mass. Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote:

    "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."         

(Equation not posted)

Upon being introduced to special relativity for the first time, it is easier to contemplate concepts like the speed of light as the speed limit of the universe by envisioning the mass as increasing to infinity at velocity c. However, when one has become familiar with the concepts of relativistic momentum and relativistic energy, there is no real need for the variable mass concept.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 09:42 PM

I give up... And I retract my original question... There is more bullshit here then you'll find in the barn yard...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:02 PM

You're only now retracting it? It was answered quite some time ago. The answer is yes, if you recover every by-product, including the heat and light, of the 50 lbs of burnt firewood, they will weigh 50 lbs altogether. Not sure why you have a problem understanding that as it seems to be pretty straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:25 PM

////"Mass or weight makes no difference since gravity acts on them exactly the same way."

Gravity only acts on 'Mass' - it cannot act on Weight'. It is already PART of 'weight'. :-)////

The "them" I was referring to were the nucleons not the quantities of mass and weight themselves.

It was not correct of me to say weight since mass can remain constant even if weight changes. The change I am talking about is actually a change of mass (which will still change the weight). The mass of a nucleus is less than the mass of its constituent nucleons weighed separately and added together (we still say "weigh" when referring to determining mass as your ordinary bathroom scale determines mass rather than weight but we still "weigh" ourselves on it).

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:26 PM

errmm..so just how do sub atomic particles know if they are human skin
or plastic laminated chipboard ???

This is all really doing my head in experimenting concentrating on mergeing my hand with my computer table,
trying to excite my particles into passing backwards and forwards throough work surface
into the cupboard underneath;

well it's something to do while I wait for the next bottle of wine to chill in the freezer...???

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:35 PM

Sorry, josepp, but we're gonna have to respectfully ask you to pee in this little plastic cup...

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:37 PM

"The answer is yes, if you recover every by-product, including the heat and light, of the 50 lbs of burnt firewood, they will weigh 50 lbs altogether."

Sorry that is wrong! Again!

The total mass of the wood AND THE AIR necessary to burn it - will equal the total mass of all physical the products of the combustion. Full stop - that is Chemistry.

The rest (ranting on about light and heat) is rubbish and mystical CRAP!.

The light and heat does NOT COME FROM DESTRUCTION OF ANY MASS! It comes from the manipulation of chemical bonds (a form of energy, not related to NUCLEAR ENERGY!) in an exothermic reaction!

If you dispute this - QUOTE your legitimate sources! :-)


"Not sure why you have a problem understanding that as it seems to be pretty straightforward. " - if you studied Chemistry and Physics!

Wikipedia
Reaction mechanism

Combustion in oxygen is a radical chain reaction where many distinct radical intermediates participate.

The high energy required for initiation is explained by the unusual structure of the dioxygen molecule. The lowest-energy configuration of the dioxygen molecule is a stable, relatively unreactive diradical in a triplet spin state. Bonding can be described with three bonding electron pairs and two antibonding electrons, whose spins are aligned, such that the molecule has nonzero total angular momentum. Most fuels, on the other hand, are in a singlet state, with paired spins and zero total angular momentum. Interaction between the two is quantum mechanically a "forbidden transition", i.e. possible with a very low probability. To initiate combustion, energy is required to force dioxygen into a spin-paired state, or singlet oxygen. This intermediate is extremely reactive. The energy is supplied as heat. The reaction produces heat, which keeps it going.

Combustion of hydrocarbons is thought to be initiated by hydrogen atom abstraction (not proton abstraction) from the fuel to oxygen, to give a hydroperoxide radical (HOO). This reacts further to give hydroperoxides, which break up to give hydroxyl radicals. There are a great variety of these processes that produce fuel radicals and oxidizing radicals. Oxidizing species include singlet oxygen, hydroxyl, monatomic oxygen, and hydroperoxyl. Such intermediates are short-lived and cannot be isolated. However, non-radical intermediates are stable and are produced in incomplete combustion. An example is acetaldehyde produced in the combustion of ethanol. An intermediate in the combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, is of special importance because it is a poisonous gas, but also economically useful for the production of syngas.

Solid fuels also undergo a great number of pyrolysis reactions that give more easily oxidized, gaseous fuels. These reactions are endothermic and require constant energy input from the combustion reactions. A lack of oxygen or other poorly designed conditions result in these noxious and carcinogenic pyrolysis products being emitted as thick, black smoke.
~~~~~~~
Assuming perfect combustion conditions, such as complete combustion under adiabatic conditions (i.e., no heat loss or gain), the adiabatic combustion temperature can be determined. The formula that yields this temperature is based on the first law of thermodynamics and takes note of the fact that the heat of combustion is used entirely for heating the fuel, the combustion air or oxygen, and the combustion product gases (commonly referred to as the flue gas).
~~~~~~~~~~

See? No matter conversion to energy!

Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:41 PM

"The "them" I was referring to were the nucleons not the quantities of mass and weight themselves. "

The 'nucleons' (and the other sub atomic particles and the electrons) ARE what we detect AS the Mass!

You are enmeshed in "The Law of Fives" - since you believe the rubbish you spout, you can only keep on 'proving' it to yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,erberts
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 01:58 AM

Did the Ancients know more than we ever will ?

Was more better scientific knowledge lost when Atlantis sank
than all them clever modern Nobel Prize Recipients will ever know ?

How did the World stop being flat and then get pumped up into 3D HDTV ?

See a balloon full of water get burst by a High Velocity Sniper Bullet
and enjoy watching the cheap hourly paid stand-in extra drop while holding it in front of his face
in High Definition Slow Motion Capture TV.

Watch a Panda fail to mate in captivity in full close up microscopic vetinary detail.

Next Monday on Discovery.. all new.. TV Science reveals all....

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 02:41 AM

Uh....look, guys...I'm having a little trouble following the ins and outs of the scientific debate that seems to be raging here.

I wonder if you could all recap your recent arguments...only in even greater detail and at greater length so that EVERY possible eventuality is covered and every nagging question put to rest?

It should only take me about 19 or 20 hours to wade through it all after you do. I will then declare a definitive winner, and you can all get on with the next vital thing in your lives. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 03:11 AM

But, do you think they will???...I'm going down to the basement....time's a wastin'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 04:27 AM

Although burning is a chemical and not a nuclear reaction, and the released energy does come from the bonds, there is still has to be a loss in mass in agreement with Einstein's equation.
The mass of a hydrogen molecule is about 4.5 eV less than the sum of masses of two hydrogen atoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:00 AM

I agree Keith but it is infinitesimal although that does not mean it does not occur. The confusion is not just mass/weight but also matter/mass. Matter is the stuff on the fire; it also has a property called 'mass' which can be defined as resistance to motion (ok Einstein refined the old Newton equation). This is sometimes called 'inertial mass'. This does not vary on the moon, in gravity free space etc. It is also has exactly the same value as 'gravitaional mass' which is the property that gravity acts on to produced weight; again this does not vary although, because gravity does, weight does. The fact these are equivalent was not explained by classical physics. Now energy - be it kinectic, gravitational, chemical, electic also has mass, according to the famous equation. I think mass is one of those properties like electric charge which you have one hell of a job defining.
If anyone can define electric charge let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:03 AM

QUOTE
Although burning is a chemical and not a nuclear reaction, and the released energy does come from the bonds, there still has to be a loss in mass in agreement with Einstein's equation.
UNQUOTE

No! Utter Bullshit!

Sigh! This is what happens when a country insists that Theology is more important than Science! This is the sort of thing that the Creationists and IDers that call themselves 'Scientists' carry on with when they pretend to understand 'Science' but babble like fools because they are locked in a 'Law of Fives' type loop insisting on proving their nonsense!...

The 'nucleons' to use a term previously said, DO NOT TAKE PART IN CHEMICAL REACTIONS!!!!! Period! Amen!

ONLY the electrons in the OUTER shells of the atoms do that!

The chemical bonding between any two elements is a complex subject (but it does NOT involve any transfer between the nucleus and the shells - you are mungling apples and oranges!), much too long to bore others with here (unless the ignorant will insist on waffling nonsense to demonstrate that they do NOT understand - so I suppose I will then just have to 'educate' them!), but the whole subject leads on to things like where we get spectrum lines - caused by electrons making 'quantum jumps' (nothing to do with the TV show!) between different energy levels in the 'shells' - the jumps always involve precise amounts of energy, which result in precise frequencies of emitted EMR.

If you now claim that there is a loss in mass due to chemical bonding - ie an energy/mass conversion in the electron shells (which is what you seem to be attesting), this is absolutely contrary to what I was taught - so - please post your documented Scientific sources. Otherwise you are spouting misunderstood pseudo science mysticism.

QUOTE
The mass of a hydrogen molecule is about 4.5 eV less than the sum of masses of two hydrogen atoms.
UNQUOTE

This has nothing to do with the previous statement about combustion, and is exactly as predicted by the known theories as to WHY the two atoms bond to form the molecule in the first place - the entropy is lower! You just don't understand nuclear quantum mechanics, do you ...

As Einstein and his followers were quoted in a previous post of mine, it is not Mass that is increased with increased velocity (although the less intelligent/educated may be misled to believe that!), but only the Momentum ... (m v squared ...) of the mass that is increased over the momentum of the rest mass ...

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:09 AM

"Now energy - be it kinetic, gravitational, chemical, electric also has mass, according to the famous equation"

Sigh - no - it can be expressed mathematically as such.



"The fact these are equivalent was not explained by classical physics."

Sorry, but they did - the equation is F = ma -

thus Weight is the product of mass by gravitational acceleration!

'gravitational mass' equals 'inertial mass' x 'gravitational acceleration'.

All the rest is nonsense...

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:22 AM

fuck me that's heavy..
cool down a bit..

so why can't I time travel at will like that plump comic Japanese chap out of "Heroes"
and then be invisible like that other bloke out of "Heroes"
and spend a vital few hours in Louise Brooks bathroom

or do x-ray eyes at young ladies in bikinis at the local beach..

physics is rubbish if I can't at least get a good perve out of it..!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:34 AM

Classical physics appears to just accept the fact that inertial mass and gravitation mass are the same: they just turn up as the same in the equations with G and g but without reason. Experiment shows they are the same to a very high accuracy. However, there is no explanation about why that which 'causes' inertia and that which 'causes' weight should be the same. This may well have led to the confusion between mass and weight; many people think you can push a roller skate or a railway truck with equal ease where there is no gravity. Einstein's Principle of Equivalence uses the equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass to develop the General Theory of Relativity.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 08:12 AM

The reference to a hot and a cold object of initally the same mass is Carlipp 1999 but I haven't been able to check this out. This is said to state that a hot object will have a greater inertial mass and gravitational mass (it will be harder to push and heavier) and also a greater gravitational field. However this will be infinitesimal because of the c^2 factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:33 PM

Binding energy and the mass defectEnter Einstein and his famous equivalence of energy and (relativistic) mass, expressed in the most famous of all physics formulae: E=mc2. According to Einstein, to every energy there corresponds a mass, and to every mass there can be assigned a corresponding energy. If you apply E=mc2 (or more precisely the inverse formula m=E/c2 giving the mass m corresponding to a given energy E) to our energy equation above, this gives a straightforward result: The relativistic mass of a bound system is somewhat smaller than the sum of the masses of its constituent parts, namely
Mass of bound system = sum of masses of its parts - (binding energy)/c2.

The mass of a helium nucleus is thus a bit less than two times the proton mass plus two times the mass of a neutron. The difference, called a mass defect, is a measure for the strength of the bond between the four nucleons: the greater the mass defect, the stronger the energy needed to pry the nucleons apart.

Everyday matter is given its stability by chemical bonds between its atoms and/or molecules. However, such chemical bonds are much too weak, the associated binding energies much too small to result in measurable mass defects - typical values are in the range of a hundredth of thousandth or even of a millionth of the mass of an electron.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVScMDIrwDQJ:www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/binding_energy+chemical+bo

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:34 PM

////Uh....look, guys...I'm having a little trouble following the ins and outs of the scientific debate that seems to be raging here.

I wonder if you could all recap your recent arguments...only in even greater detail and at greater length so that EVERY possible eventuality is covered and every nagging question put to rest?////

Do you really want Foolestroupe the nut to recount everything he just posted? He'll just post it all over again and he doesn't know what he's talking about so how will you? He shotgun blasts his answers by cutting and pasting absurd amounts of material hoping that somewhere in there he actually hits something and never does.

As for my statement about a nucleus losing mass as compared to the masses of its constituent nucleons, there's nothing hard to understand.

Atomic nuclei are held together by Binding Energy, the definition of which is not impotant here. Just say it's what makes nucleons stick together. Where does that energy come from? Since energy and mass are different states of the same thing, some amount of the mass of each nucleon is converted into the Binding Energy that makes them stick together. That energy has to come from somewhere in the universe and not outside it.

It has been proven conclusively and it it not speculation. It is called mass-defect. Basically, the universe pulls itself up by its bootsraps.

On the microphysical level, mass-defect makes perfect sense although it would not on a macrophysical scale. That's it. Real hard, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:53 PM

Yes!!! ;-) I thirst for more information on this obcure yet vital subject, more attack, and more counterattack, more ire and bile, as we settle once and for all who is the "winner" here! I witness it rather like an effete Washington socialite would whilst having a merry little picnic and observing the grand show unfolding at the Battle of Bull Run! Don't disappoint me, gentlemen. I await the next series of revelations with bated breath and palpitating heart, I assure you....

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:53 PM

Pardon me! Should have said "obscure", not "obcure".

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 01:14 PM

This is what happens when science weenies play the "mine's bigger than yours" game.

Somebody oughtta make a list of the 10 most ridiculous excuses for arguments at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 02:37 PM

Bon, do we know what's going on? I'm reading A Short History Of Almost Everything, or something very similar, and I (as Feynman said) don't understand quantum physics. But I'm OK in the macro (read: real) world...

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 03:52 PM

If ya don`t know what you`re talking about, please STFU.

Oh, Happy New Year.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: josepp
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 05:34 PM

///Somebody oughtta make a list of the 10 most ridiculous excuses for arguments at Mudcat.////

That's easy--any that deal with politics. The stupidest political opinions I have ever read are expressesd on Mudcat by conservative and liberal alike. Unlike you, I don't hang out on threads that I claim are ridiculous and stupid--I stay off them. I would suggest the same to you.

Little Hawk gets a pass because he claims he enjoys it like spectator sport which means it's worth watching to him and that's fine by me. But if you hate the thread--get off it. Problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 07:27 PM

A perhaps more tractable problem for pundits here, and one related to a current event:

Giant Antonov An-22 cargo plane crashes in rural Russia [29 December 2010]

No official details have been given on the cause of this crash, although authorities have described it as a "training mission."

The suspected actual mission was the transport of "94 tonnes" (~184,000 pounds) of canaries to North Korea for release at the pending birthday celebration for the son of the NK Premier, but it is believed that the Russians have concealed the purpose of the flight in order to evade criticism from international agencies participating in the embargo prohibiting export of "frivolous luxuries" to North Korea.

The cause of the crash is attributed to the long flight duration, during which time the young lieutenant charged with "canary care" must have fallen asleep. The duties of this lieutenant included whacking the canary crate with a stick every ten minutes or so, to keep most of the canaries in flight and thus to permit the AN-22 (rated cargo capacity "60 tonnes," or ~120,000 pounds) to carry the requisite number of canaries. When too many of the canaries settled on their perches the airplane was dragged out of the sky by the rather substantial overload.

An alternate theory is that although the canaries were kept in flight as intended, the accumulation of canary crap may have provided the overloading responsible for the crash, as everyone knows the amount of crap from any caged bird generally exceeds the weight of the bird within a very short time.

Anyone see any defects in these theories?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Joe_F
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 08:04 PM

This is an old & charming joke, and it has some real physics in it. The case of birds flying inside an enclosed plane (or a truck) is clear-cut: The weight of the plane is the same whether the birds inside are flying or are at rest on the floor. The plane supports the interior air, and that air supports the flying birds. The way it works in detail is that the flight of the birds increases the air pressure on the floor of the plane & decreases the pressure on the roof. The same with the way the earth supports the plane: As the plane flies, the atmospheric pressure underneath is temporarily increased, by an amount that is greatest directly below & tails off as you go away; the pressure increase integrated over the area on the ground equals the weight of the plane.

You might well ask what the situation is when the space the birds occupy is not enclosed -- say, the birds are in a truck that is open at the top, or -- at an extreme -- a flatbed truck. Then you get into aerodynamic subtleties. How much of the birds' weight is supported by the truck, & how much is supported directly by the ground, depends on the details of how the air currents produced by the birds peel off the edges of the truck. It's a messy problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 11:47 PM

Mythbusters did the 'birds in a truck' and 'plane taking off from a moving conveyor belt'. Even the pilot said he did not believe he could take off, which is a worry thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 01:34 AM

Glad you kept posting FT. I now understand what you are saying in your initial post. You left much unsaid. Correct on the neutron's very short life outside the realm of the neucleous. Related is the question of the potential length of the existence of a neutron star. Are the benefits of close association with nothing but other netrons the same as being in a stable neucleous? I don't know the answer to that one. I do know that N-stars do evaporate eventually. Equally curious as to the life of a magnetar.

Yes, yes! Weight is an arbitrary designation based on one's local gravitaional conditions. Weight varies and mass stays the same.

I will continue to seek out that one particular article to which I referred. BTW I wouldn't call Planck's work exactly passe.

My real question to you is why the anger? The putdowns? There is no need to become indignant.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Mick Woods
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 05:48 AM

Remember this ol'; chestnut - If everybody in China jumps into the air at the same time then the earth will be thrown off it's axis!

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 06:35 PM

Well, when we jumped into WWII, we threw off the Nazi Axis, why can't the Chinese throw off the Earth's axis by jumping? For those humor impaired, the foregoing is a JOKE!   JUST a JOKE!

Having re thought the foregoing posts, simply put my point was and is this: If E=mC^2, what one is saying is that mass converts to energy and releases an incredible amount of energy. Energy can convert to mass (as in atomic fussion) with a tremendous release of energy as well as a consumption of energy. Either way WORK is being done. There is motion. There is HEAT being released. According to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic there is no such thing as a perfect machine. During ANY energy exchange, ANY, some heat is lost to the universe in a random fashion which increases the entropy of the system(s) and the whole. It is a wholly logical conclusion therefore, that ANY work done results in an overall loss of matter as heat. That loss would be in the inverse proportion of C^2 and virtually unmeasureable except by statistical means, at the scale we live. Metaphysics? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 06:45 PM

Energy in ergs is equal to mass in grams multiplied by the velocity of light multiplied again by the velocity of light.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 07:05 PM

That was funny, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:30 AM

Thanks, uh, which part?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 06:55 AM

Good old ergs; I haven't seen them since A-levels. I remember working out complicated (at the time)problems and ending with 'cgs units' as trying to work out the units for G, say, was totally beyond us. If we had to prove something and failed, sticking a factor of 981 here or there usually did the trick. Did Nelcon & Parker ever get a honour?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:37 AM

I thought the quote was "If everyone in London was laid end to end ....







Nobody would be at all surprised!"



Quack!
Geoff the Duck.
p.s I still want to know whether it was pixies or boggarts that stole Bobert's log from the fire and left ashes?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: GUEST,999
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:38 AM

`Thanks, uh, which part?`

The humourous one, Slag. Happy New Year to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:40 PM

I've been considering my New Year's Resolution and decided that from Midnight I can't be bothered to get involved with pointless idiots, especially the ones who spout garbage despite it being obvious to the rest of us, that everybody is just taking the rise out of them. People who think they know it all, but if anyone points out they are spouting rubbish immediately resort to personal abuse and insulting language.
I think we know which contributor to this thread we are talking about.

If I spot which little green alien stole Bobert's fire to power their crop circle making machines, I'll let you all know what planet I think they're on. Probably the planet Pillock!
Quack!
Geoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:24 PM

There are a number of very good posts here. The BS is enough to supply a bit of comedic relief to keep going in an interesting direction.

What Einstein discovered is profound and ahead of his time.
What he did not know was huge.

Think of some of the discoveries in the last twenty years that were unknown in his time: accelerating universe/ dark energy, dark matter, string theory, super symmetry ...

It is often said that Albert dismissed his original idea of a cosmological constant that could account for some of our recent discoveries. That is only roughly true.

Where Eisnstein trails off is at the quantum scale and the extra dimensional realm.

That is why I have developed a theory that explains the true mass of our universe and why the universe started to slow down its expansion and then has since started to accelerate more and more.

What I propose is that black holes have now taken so much matter into a parallel sub space that the gravity of that dark sub space mass now acts as the growing energy pulling the universe in expansion faster and faster.

In other words, Black holes have grown in number over time and have taken enough mass into their singularities throughout the universe to the point that their sub space mass is now pulling the universe outward . From our perspective this looks like antigravity pushing things apart, but from the perspective of the mass on the other side of the black hole - its gravity is pulling the rest of the universe .

An asute cosmologist will notice that I am in total disagreement with Stephen Hawking who claims all black holes merely evaporate into our normal universe over time. I am saying the mass going into all kinds of black holes passes into a discretely different dimension shich still interacts with our universe gravitationally.


---------------

most great ideas turn out to be a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Another such idea of hyperdimensional physics by Richard Hoagland (who is famous for raving) is at least a little bit right for proposing that mass in our universe is more massive due to a dimension of invisible mass than we thought. 30 years ago the term of dark matter did not exist.

The theory that dark matter needed to be present to allow for the formulation of early galaxies has been modeled by super computers.

I suppose all I am saying is that dark matter is growing (from black holes injesting our universe over time) and has overtaken our familiar universe. That is why the expansion of our universe is speeding up.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 04:40 PM

But, expansion of human intelligence and compsassion seems to be slowing down. Neutrons, photons... morons are more important. Especially the morons that use science to kill.

Sorry... it's Fiday night and I ain't got... no quarks... I'll just go sing to myself in the corner. Happy Neutrons all.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:34 AM

And from the big bosons on the block, Happy Neutrinos to all you little wimps and winos, strange and charm ing, up or down, monopoles and, well, you know who you are.

That is an interesting theory/ speculation, Donuel. All the matter that has fallen into the abyss of black holes has to "be" somewhere even if it is not entirely in our neighborhood. Its gravity is certainly still felt and who knows how else it may effect our dimensions.

Great stuff and good debate. I will return Bobert's logs after the circle the globe once or twice. I have the means of reassembly and though they may not be an exact replica, it should be close enough for similar use.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 05:45 AM

Donuel

Interesting theory. How far have you got with the mathematical development of your hypothesis?

One of the questions which I have never got me head round is - how fast am I travelling when I am standing still.

I've done the first part - the earth orbits the sun at approx 22 miles/sec or .00001c.

But what about taking into account the speed that the sun moves round the galaxy.... and the speed our galaxy itself is moving - so what proportion of the speed of light would that amount to. Oh, and I forgot, the rotation of the earth as well.

Moving on to relativity. Just taking our galaxy. More mindblowing just using special relativity.

Question 1. Do stars orbit the galactic centre over the same period of time - like a watch hand - then according to Einstein, a body a the galactic centre would have a smaller mass than an equivalent sized body on the galatic rim. However, would a better calculation be the number of radii per second. And if that is constant - the galactic year at the two extremes must be very different.

Anyway - I'll hand this over to phycisitics and cosmologist who know what they are tlaking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 06:55 AM

SPB, at relativistic speeds, velocities do not simply get added together.
And,however fast you are going, light still passes you at light speed.
Galactic orbital velocities would have a very small effect on the mass of the body, and a body's mass does not effect its orbital period anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 03:47 PM

Amazing chap, that Einstein - considering he started out just running a record shop in Liverpool.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:13 PM

Yes, but his inluence on The Beatles was the monument of his music carrer. It is quite unfortunate that his drug abuse also influenced them is sad ways, thus detracting from their creativity. Otherwise, they would have been famous and contributed to the modern music of the time in ways we will never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:28 PM

True, Gnu, but it's all relative.

Didn't they put him on their album cover?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 04:52 PM

Indeed they did... Sgt. Pepper's. And, also on the little known Apple Road cover, next to Sir Issac Newton who, as we all know, influenced Al's music.

Apples are good physics.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 Jan 11 - 05:13 PM

At the risk of being accused of not respecting the gravity of the discussion, wasn't Apple Road the one where Ringo wasn't wearing underpants?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 02:55 AM

You would not think of it by the look of him but he was famous long ago for playing the electric(dyslexic) violin on Desolation Row.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 12:00 PM

Most of what Foolstroupe states is right on the ball. However I must take exception to one comment;
6) Total mass of solids (wood - 50 pounds) and gases BEFORE the fire, will be the same as the total mass of solids and gases AFTER the fire. You just gotta be clever enough to catch them all and weigh them ALL.
You may also need to include liquids in one or both sides of this equation.

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:49 PM

Of course, Chongo Chimp introduced a totally new concept into the discussion:
You don't need an infinite force to move a really large man or gorilla in whatever direction you want him to go. You just need to hook two fingers inside his nostrils and PULL! He will go whatever way you want him to, and with only a small amount of force needed. It don't take much energy, just good accuracy and follow-through.
It should be noted that this is actually a 'push'. Gravity and magnetism exert a pull. Everything else is a push.

Discuss!

Happy New Year, Blwyddyn Newydd da!

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:52 PM

An engine pulls a train?
No, it is attached to its coupling, and the coupling links behind the coupling of the train, and so pushes the train.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:52 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:58 PM

Are you pullin my chain?

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:39 AM

Stars do not orbit their galactic center with any coherence to Newtonian Physics. They orbit faster than they should in the outer reaches of their galaxy. That is why more mass with the accompagning gravity is needed to account for the faster than normal outer orbits.

It is believed that dark matter is made of very basic particles like wimps, neutrinos or other elemntal tiny bits. My idea that they come from the other side of what black holes swallow is a brand new idea that I hope is borrwed by those who will claim all the credit once a mathmatical proof is offered.

If the particles of dark matter are in a seperate dimension is also an interesting question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------




There is a 5th dimension beyond which is unkown to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadows, between science and superstition and it lies betweent he pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imajination.
It is an area we BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 11:50 AM

What I find eloquent about my theory is that it explains both dark matter and dark energy with simplicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 12:06 PM

When I first introduced this black hole-dark energy and matter theory, along with a graphic representation of how it looked to me, there was not a single person who thought it was a good idea. Since I stated the concept in a very wordy fashion, along with my chronic dyslexic poor spelling, even moustheif thought I had a psychotic break. Since the idea came to me in the wee hours in a visual representation, communicating it the same fashion was a bad idea.
I should not expect anyone to see cosmilogical dreams as I do.
All the same, the idea felt profound at the time in the same way Eisnstein may have felt when he visualized leaving a large clock face at the speed of light and noticing that time had essentially stopped. From that image came the rest of the theory of relativity.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Slag
Date: 03 Jan 11 - 06:33 PM

Isn't it also interesting that mathematicians and physicists have been working with numbers of the 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions and beyond, for many years, describing mathmatically what cannot be described verbally.

Subject: RE: BS: Einstein Question???
From: Ringer
Date: 04 Jan 11 - 11:52 AM

"Good old ergs; I haven't seen them since A-levels. I remember working out complicated (at the time)problems and ending with 'cgs units' as trying to work out the units for G, say, was totally beyond us."

CGS, eh? Damn these new-fangled systems. I'm an FFF man myself: furlongs, firkins, fortnights. And the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight is HUGE.