BS: Einstein Question???

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 11 - 08:58 PM

Are you pullin my chain?

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

100

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 - 08:49 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:13 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 - 03:47 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: Slag
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 02:30 AM

Thanks, uh, which part?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:53 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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