Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.

That rules out all your E=mc2 arguments then.
You yourself have stated that the mass change is undetectable so bang goes
your theory.

Switch off at the socket?
 

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

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

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

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

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


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


Yes. And still are.


Ahh, they're pulllin' your leg.

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

For instance we know you can store energy by compressing a gas, it
gets hot, if you let it cool it still has more energy than the
uncompressed gas but it isn't moving faster so e=mc2 doesn't enter
into the issue. Yet TNP and other swear that all stored energy
results from e=mc2.

I can see its a bit pointless really. Energy doesn't 'result' from
e=mc squared. It is simply that stored energy (if you like) *has* a
mass governed by that equation.

That's where you're wrong. Einstein's contribution was to postulate,
contrary to previous understanding, that energy and mass _could_
theoretically be interconverted, and that, _when they are_, his equation
applies to quantify it. He did not say, however, that a change of energy
necessarily entails a corresponding change of mass.

What Einstein's equations say, right or wrong, is that stored energy
has mass. Period.

Wrong. You're working from his equation, assuming that it applies to all
events involving energy transfer when it doesn't. So, you're approaching
this from the wrong direction. _If_ adding energy increased mass, then his
equation would show you how much. But you can't work backwards from his
equation to prove that adding energy does in fact increase mass.

For just about any energy below atomic decay, its
unmeasurably small, which is why no one ever noticed it before
Einstein.

Einstein didn't notice it either. He calculated it as a theoretical
possibility. And you can go as small as you like with theoretical
possibilities, so what you say is nonsense.

Its not down to me to prove that. Its simply what accepted science is
currently using as the most accurate theory that *hasn't been
disproved yet*. Which is ALL 'accepted scientific fact' actually
MEANS.

What the sensible ones here are saying is that it is _not_ 'accepted
science' that mass and energy are commonly converted one into the other.

The current 'view' of physics is NOT that the world consists of
particles of 'matter' and energy, its that the world consists solely
of *something*, which we might as well call 'energy' and for reasons
we don't entirely understand, that energy is not smooth, but 'lumpy'
and the lumps in it - the quanta of energy- are what we used to call
'particles' and 'atoms' are larger 'lumps' of energy. etc etc. The
more energy is in a lump, the more it resists acceleration. It has
more 'mass'
Now it just so happens that in the macro world we live in day to day,
the amount of energy that is in anything we come across is so tightly
bound to its structure, that any minor mass variations in it due to
its speed, temperature, springiness, chemical bonds or whatever you
want to call it, is so vanishingly small compared with its actual
inherent nuclear energy, that for all practical purposes it can be
ignored, and hence the 'classical' Newtonian world becomes an
excellent approximation.I.e. its NOT true to say that the mass of
reagents=the mass of the compound that results. It IS true to say,
that its so darned close that nothing we have in any laboratory is
likely to tell the difference.

That's why I've asked you several times for a definition of 'mass', without
which we can't progress. You've totally failed to come up with yours, so
we'll use mine from Chamber's Dictionary of Science and Technology, which
seems a reputable and reasonable place to start if you want a definition of
something scientific.

That defines 'mass' as 'the quantity of matter in a body'. In other words,
it's a measure of the number of atoms it contains. From that definition, it
follows that a reduction in mass can _only_ result from the destruction of
some of these atoms, ie from the _destruction_ of some matter.

Destruction of matter and the corresponding release of energy has only been
seen in nuclear reactions and in the radioactive decay of radioactive
isotopes. If it were to happen as a matter of course whenever, say, a lead
weight is lowered, the corresponding reverse synthesis of atoms must
logically occur when the weight is raised again. Those who think that would
apparently have us believe that exactly the same atoms (ie of lead) would be
re-formed as those that were earlier destroyed. Otherwise, merely raising
and lowering a weight a sufficient number of times would alter its chemical
composition. I take the view, however, that that's a bit far-fetched,
indeed totally unbelievable.

The truth is that there is no interconversion of mass and energy happening
in ordinary mechanical processes, just conversions of energy between
different forms, eg kinetic to heat.


However there is a difference between Norman's assertion that it
'doesn't apply' and the consequences of Einstein's view, that its
effects are unmeasurable.


If Norman can disprove it experimentally, he is up for a Nobel prize,
if he can also explain why relativity is violated, with a better
theorem. If he can't disprove it experimentally, and has no
alternative theory, he's just another wannabe pontificator on science
who doesn't even know - as he has clearly demonstrated by his utter
ignorance of it - what science actually is.

I think not. In time, maybe even you will come to understand just what
Einstein was about, and have a better understanding of the physical world as
a result.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Jerry" wrote in message
...


No I have not, I have asked him to provide evidence as to why his
theory is/could-be correct, "because I say so" is not evidence.



Because you say it isn't isn't evidence either.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.

So, how do propose to test your explanation that raising the weight
in a clock increases its mass?


I don't.

Its up to you to prove that it doesn't.


I have already told you, and so have others, that its less than a part
in a billion.

So its down to YOU who claim a violation of relativity, to come up
with a test that shows that any variation in mass is well and
demonstrably and repeatably less than that. Do that, and the Nobel is
yours.

I've got better things to do.

Pity it's not learning what Einstein actually said.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In message
,
alexander.keys1 writes:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

As one who grew up (from about age 6, anyway) in Germany, I've always
found BS1363 connectors (the "13A" type), both plug and - especially -
socket, far too big - and having a switch on each socket an unnecessary
further complication. If you really want to "turn off at the socket",
you can take the plug out ...

(Other designs of plug don't lie in wait for your bare feet either ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"God give me work \ Till my life shall end \ And life \ Till my work is done."
-
gravestone of Winifred Holtby, Yorkshire novelist

Switch off at the socket?
 

In message , Andy
Burns writes:
[]
so dividing by 8760 hours that *did* equate to a continuous 5.7kW per
person. Granted some of that will contribute to exported goods and
services, but equally our imports will contribute to other countries'
consumption figures so it's difficult to adjustment for that.

Still barely makes it worthwhile unplugging idle phone chargers though,
most of that power is consumed on our behalf, not directly by us.

I presume that _must_ include transport costs, i. e. the equivalent
energy used by our car or bus. If I was consuming 5.7 kW continuously of
electricity (and even gas), my bills would be bigger, and my house very
hot!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"God give me work \ Till my life shall end \ And life \ Till my work is done."
-
gravestone of Winifred Holtby, Yorkshire novelist

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There are no correct explanations. There are only ones that work.

And produce testable predictable results.

That rules out all your E=mc2 arguments then.
You yourself have stated that the mass change is undetectable so bang
goes your theory.


It manifests at other levels.

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

More crass misunderstanding of how science works.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:


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

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

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

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


For instance we know you can store energy by compressing a gas, it gets
hot, if you let it cool it still has more energy than the uncompressed
gas but it isn't moving faster so e=mc2 doesn't enter into the issue. Yet
TNP and other swear that all stored energy results from e=mc2.


I can see its a bit pointless really.

Its education for some.

Energy doesn't 'result' from e=mc squared.

Now we are getting somewhere.

It is simply that stored energy (if you like) *has* a mass governed by
that equation.

Shame, we didn't get far.


What Einstein's equations say, right or wrong, is that stored energy has
mass. Period. For just about any energy below atomic decay, its
unmeasurably small, which is why no one ever noticed it before Einstein.

Einstein knew that the normal laws of physics don't work when you have
certain conditions and he wrote a series of equations that did work under
those conditions. He also knew that his equations didn't work under all
conditions as he didn't tell the world that things like quantum mechanics
were [email protected] *He* was clever enough to know that.

Maybe you should go and look at string theory? It does propose to explain
everything and work under all circumstances.


Its not down to me to prove that. Its simply what accepted science is
currently using as the most accurate theory that *hasn't been disproved
yet*. Which is ALL 'accepted scientific fact' actually MEANS.

You have yet to demonstrate where the scientific community accepts the free
interchange of mass and energy such as in storing energy in batteries,
springs, hydro plants, compressed gases, etc.

The current 'view' of physics is NOT that the world consists of particles
of 'matter' and energy, its that the world consists solely of *something*,
which we might as well call 'energy' and for reasons we don't entirely
understand, that energy is not smooth, but 'lumpy' and the lumps in it -
the quanta of energy- are what we used to call 'particles' and 'atoms' are
larger 'lumps' of energy. etc etc. The more energy is in a lump, the more
it resists acceleration. It has more 'mass'

Waffle.


Now it just so happens that in the macro world we live in day to day, the
amount of energy that is in anything we come across is so tightly bound
to its structure, that any minor mass variations in it due to its speed,
temperature, springiness, chemical bonds or whatever you want to call it,
is so vanishingly small compared with its actual inherent nuclear energy,
that for all practical purposes it can be ignored, and hence the
'classical' Newtonian world becomes an excellent approximation.I.e. its
NOT true to say that the mass of reagents=the mass of the compound that
results. It IS true to say, that its so darned close that nothing we have
in any laboratory is likely to tell the difference.

Waffle.



However there is a difference between Norman's assertion that it 'doesn't
apply' and the consequences of Einstein's view, that its effects are
unmeasurable.


If Norman can disprove it experimentally, he is up for a Nobel prize,

If you can show that mass is converted to energy in a battery you will get
more than a Noble prize.
It would be easy to add a few nanograms to a battery and have "perpetual"
energy if you can do that.
The world will bow down to you the saviour of the human race.

if he can also explain why relativity is violated, with a better theorem.
If he can't disprove it experimentally, and has no alternative theory,
he's just another wannabe pontificator on science who doesn't even know -
as he has clearly demonstrated by his utter ignorance of it - what science
actually is.


You are the one that states relativity applies to stored energy, you prove
it does.
You yourself stated that without proof its not science.