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).