Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.
Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.
OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.


And how does it get to be that way without reference to its molecular
constituents?

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 20/09/09 23:19, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:50:48 +0100, Paul wrote:

This is all fine and good until something goes wrong. A well-known UK
ISP had all this in place in one of their datacentres. Unfortunately,
their diesel generator's exhaust vented into the street. A passing
member of the public thought the exhaust fumes were smoke and called
the fire brigade, who turned up and told the operators to shut
everything down.

"There's no fire here Mr. Fire Brigade man. Now f* off."

By all means try to reason with them, but be aware of

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004...#pt6-pb1-l1g44

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc
etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source like
that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you numerous times to
provide the definition of mass that you use and give its source and, every
time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're asking us to dismiss an
established definition and replace it with, well, what exactly? Something
woolly and undefined with no scientific foundation which you just state
supports your case when there is no justification for that at all.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway, I
though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.


How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly
the same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same
number of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass that we
have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology,
mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you increase the
quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its mass.

That's logic, see?

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases with
heating.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the definition of
mass.


Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of energy
there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was chemical energy, I
could easily release that and convert it into kinetic energy, like I do in a
car. But how do I do it with a lump of lead? Should be easy enough if it's
energy already surely.



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly say
that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads logically and
inevitably to the fact that they do.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
I've already pointed out in another post complete with a link to K&L
that this definition of mass is WRONG! What you are using is a
scientifically loose description of it in common parlance, NOT a
definition.

That's strange. I thought dictionaries were there to provide definitions.

And besides, there seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of some here,
to give the definition on which they rely, even when asked several times
over. I think that's because they'll be found out to be fiddling the facts
to fit their conclusions.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...


I stuffed my gob with blackberries this afternoon (not the ones that cost
£2.19 for a pack of 8 from the supermarket).

I grow my own, but they haven't been as good as usual this year.
It was the cold spell earlier I think.

Switch off at the socket?
 

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

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium
nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops the atomic
number by [two].

Some also result in a gamma photon. (eg. Cs137 and Co58)

Some emit inverse beta (positrons), which drops the atomic number by
one. (eg. C11 and Ga68)

There are also usually neutrinos or antineutrinos involved.


True, I was only considering natural isotopes rather than stuff created in
reactors.
I don't recall any natural isotopes that do either of those.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

By doing course corrections based on measurement at the time, just like they
did with Apollo.
It is impossible to plot a course at this time as we don't know where all
the objects are in the solar system and each unknown body will have an
unknown effect.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc
etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source
like that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you numerous
times to provide the definition of mass that you use and give its source
and, every time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're asking us to
dismiss an established definition and replace it with, well, what
exactly? Something woolly and undefined with no scientific foundation
which you just state supports your case when there is no justification
for that at all.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway, I
though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.


How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly
the same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same
number of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass that
we have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology, mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you
increase the quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its mass.

That's logic, see?


Logic based on false premises is nit the truth.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases with
heating.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the
definition of mass.


It follows from YOUR definition of mass, sure. But that is not the
definition that science in fact uses.



Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of
energy there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was chemical
energy, I could easily release that and convert it into kinetic energy,
like I do in a car. But how do I do it with a lump of lead? Should be
easy enough if it's energy already surely.


Dont be sillier than you have to be.



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly
say that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads
logically and inevitably to the fact that they do.

Sigh. Mass has been defined for you perfectly clearly and simply. It is
the 'm' term in the equation F=ma.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I've already pointed out in another post complete with a link to K&L
that this definition of mass is WRONG! What you are using is a
scientifically loose description of it in common parlance, NOT a
definition.

That's strange. I thought dictionaries were there to provide definitions.


Well there you thought wrong.

And besides, there seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of some
here, to give the definition on which they rely, even when asked several
times over. I think that's because they'll be found out to be fiddling
the facts to fit their conclusions.


F=ma.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:41:13 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

This is all fine and good until something goes wrong. A
well-known UK
ISP had all this in place in one of their datacentres.
Unfortunately,
their diesel generator's exhaust vented into the street. A
passing
member of the public thought the exhaust fumes were smoke and
called
the fire brigade, who turned up and told the operators to shut
everything down.

"There's no fire here Mr. Fire Brigade man. Now f* off."

By all means try to reason with them, but be aware of

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004...#pt6-pb1-l1g44

"(3) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he
obstructs or interferes with an employee of a fire and rescue
authority taking action authorised under this section. "

Telling Mr Fireman to "f* off" wouldn't work but letting them in and
showing that there is no fire so the fire officer can't "reasonably
believe[s] a fire to have broken out or to be about to break out, for
the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or protecting
life or property;". Which means he loses his right to do and go where
ever he desires using any means at his disposal.

--
Cheers
Dave.