Switch off at the socket?
 

"rosie" wrote in message
...
:
snip
:
: I only posted this to give him a clue.
:

Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".

Then go and find out why you have all the attributes of a
newsgroup "troll"

Switch off at the socket?
 

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...
:
:
: "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.
:

But he hasn't 'published' anything, I'm saying "PROVE IT", not
that he is wrong - but OTOH if he can't prove his assertions...

Switch off at the socket?
 

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


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

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

Depends which bit of it you're talking about. His formula e=mc^2
certainly isn't though.

Oh dear

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=336961


Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the mass that
could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you can do that with
any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But those calculations only
have any significance or relevance if what you're doing is actually
converting mass into energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually
converted into energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions and
radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

Even the article says, as regards a closed body, that "the internal energy
may be chemical, mechanical, kinetic or potential; it will change all the
time from one type to another type". That's energy-energy conversion, not
energy-mass conversion. It does not involve mass. And if it doesn't
involve mass, it's hard to see how Einstein's formula which has that awkward
little 'm' in it, has any relevance.

What bit of the article do you think supports your position, and how?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"rosie" wrote in message
...

snip

I only posted this to give him a clue.


Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".

Oh God, have we got to make allowances for the backward too?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B)" wrote in
message ...
... if and only if you are living in cold regions.... :)
You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It _is_
cold for all of us. Not like HK...

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?

It's been a lovely few days. We call it an 'Indian Summer' when it's nice at
this time of year. The sky is blue, there is very little wind, and the fruit
trees are laden with nature's bounteous harvest.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

--
Paul Martin


The earth's course is determined by the combined gravitational effects of
every object in the universe, not just in the solar system. Was '(to a first
approximation)' your get out in case someone mentioned this?

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
[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.

Give a an example with evidence.


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

Sorry but atoms have been detected, try again.


More crass misunderstanding of how science works.

From you?

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Nevertheless, it does.

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

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

Maybe the alchemists were right, They could transmute lead into gold.

All they had to do was lift it up and down enough.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

The earth's course is determined by the combined gravitational effects of
every object in the universe, not just in the solar system. Was '(to a first
approximation)' your get out in case someone mentioned this?

Correct. The influence of objects beyond the Oort cloud is probably not
readily measurable. Jupiter, on the other hand, is a big bugger and is
close enough to cause all sorts of troubles.

And that's just using Newtonian approximations ;-)

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?

To a pedant, that is correct. The earth orbits the centre of mass of
the whole solar system (to a first approximation). That might not
always lie within the Sun.

It is always within the Sun. As one would intuitively expect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycen...nd_astronom y


Martin