Switch off at the socket?

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news
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?


Yes, we are all making allowances for you...

Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

Is it only the exceptionally brilliant then?

No, it can't be that. How can it be if it includes you?

"Jerry" wrote


Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

Hmm. Many experts in this field believe that Einstein fell within
the autistic spectra. Asperger's syndrome, to be specific.

Quite the opposite of being a bad speller. A bloody good speller,
in fact.

If speaking the truth equates to being a troll, then so be it.
Suck it up, sonny.

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

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the interaction
of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

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 one.

With fission the neutron makes the nucleus unstable and it splits into
smaller fragments, each usually much larger than alpha. It also releases
some high speed neutrons.

Only people like TNP would claim them to be the same.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

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.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states it quite clearly

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#1.1

Section 1.2.1:

"In this example, the novel claim made by special relativity is that the
inertial mass of a physical system changes when the system either absorbs
or emits energy. No such change occurs according to pre-relativistic
physics. In pre-relativistic physics, the inertial mass of the gold bar,
i.e., the bar's tendency to resist changes in velocity, is the same at all
temperatures."

If an edited publication from Stanford University isn't good enough for you,
perhaps you'll take it from the original author:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Norman - perhaps you would be so kind and either put up or shut up.

Or would you prefer a discussion on why the earth isn't flat?


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

No they're not. They know it already.

[email protected] wrote:


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

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

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 one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?


Martin

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


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

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

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 one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?

Sorry you are correct that was a typo.



Martin

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:05:41 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

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.

I stuffed my gob with blackberries this afternoon (not the ones that cost
£2.19 for a pack of 8 from the supermarket).
I'll probably feel the effects tomorrow!

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:50:48 +0100, Paul Martin 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."

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:02:56 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Matter is not converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at
the extremes.

Where does "the extremes" start then?
That seems somewhat unlikely... nothing "at all" until some point where
it all starts.

Fleetie wrote:

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

Does that say the centre of mass of the solar system lies within the sun?
As I read it, it says the centre of mass of the sun and jupiter
is a little outside the sun (742,000 km from the centre of the sun,
which has radius 696,000 km).
This seems to imply that the centre of mass of the solar system
is usually, if not always, just outside the sun.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland