Switch off at the socket?

Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

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

Hardly. The dictionary is giving you a very simplistic definition of
mass. Adequate for some purposes, but not if you wish to discuss
matters of quantum physics or (special) relativity.

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

How about:

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/ 9x10^2^0, the
energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes".

[A. Einstein, 27/09/1905,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ ]

That's not a definition at all. If I say "A pound is a measure of the
weight of a body" does that define what a pound is?


can be, if you define body and weight.

However it would be a wrong definition: A definition though.

Try again.

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.

Erm, see above.

You've confirmed that you have no understanding of what a definition is,
let alone provided one that is precise.



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.

Newtonian mechanics is as far as it goes. However it is an
approximation, that omits detail.

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

You count the atoms.

Which only tell you the mass if you know other things.

The number of atoms _is_ the quantity of matter in a body. It is
composed of nothing else.


Well that is a very very thin-ice statement.

Many models would say that it was a lot more than that.

It certainly isn't enough to shake a random bunch of atoms in a bag and
say 'look, garlic sausage'


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

Where does this assertion that Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology is the only supported definition come from?

Find me another.


WE have. Half a dozen now. But it seems that because you are a thick
****, the only one you can understand, is the Chambers. Presumably
written by thick ****s for thick ****s.


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 indeed. However if you start from a flawed baseline, any logical
derivation from it can't hope to be right can it?

For any typical human interaction with the world around us, the notion
that mass is "the quantity of matter in a body" is adequate. However
you need to also accept its only an approximation to the reality.

So, what is mass, according to you?


Energy. Bound energy.


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 can, if you accept that the mass of atoms changes and that you
reject the concept that mass is defined purely as the number of atoms
you have.

If you start from the baseline that mass is defined by the combined
effect of both their number, and their embodied energy, then it is
quite easy.

But you haven't started from anywhere. You haven't defined mass.


See Godel. you can split the world into related bits, and design a
system, that is self consistent, but as to whether the initial splitting
is meaningful..no one can say.




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.

Only from Chambers, and it should hopefully be clear that this is an
over simplistic definition.

Which we should replace by what exactly?

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

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the
only _definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the
quantity of matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the
number of elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

If you can understand beyond the first word.

Oh yes. So, what definition are you using then?

I am not.

In that case, you fall at the first hurdle. You cannot base any argument on
'mass' if you don't know what it means.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:


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

How about:

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the
energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/
9x10^2^0, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in
grammes". [A. Einstein, 27/09/1905,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ ]

That's not a definition at all. If I say "A pound is a measure of
the weight of a body" does that define what a pound is?


can be, if you define body and weight.

However it would be a wrong definition: A definition though.

Maybe English isn't your first language then?

The number of atoms _is_ the quantity of matter in a body. It is
composed of nothing else.


Well that is a very very thin-ice statement.

Many models would say that it was a lot more than that.

It certainly isn't enough to shake a random bunch of atoms in a bag
and say 'look, garlic sausage'

It is, however, what they consist of. Entirely. The fact that a bag of
atoms does not spontaneously form a garlic sausage in fact supports my
argument, not yours.



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

Where does this assertion that Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology is the only supported definition come from?

Find me another.


WE have. Half a dozen now. But it seems that because you are a thick
****, the only one you can understand, is the Chambers. Presumably
written by thick ****s for thick ****s.

You don't understand what a definition is, so you wouldn't recognise one if
it bit you on the bum.

I've been referred to book after book, article after article, but still
no-one will state the definition _they_ use of something so basic and
fundamental as 'mass'. And without that, they cannot sustain any valid
argument. It's all waffle, shifting sand, smoke and mirrors.


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 indeed. However if you start from a flawed baseline, any
logical derivation from it can't hope to be right can it?

For any typical human interaction with the world around us, the
notion that mass is "the quantity of matter in a body" is adequate.
However you need to also accept its only an approximation to the
reality.

So, what is mass, according to you?

Energy. Bound energy.

Is 'bound energy' a subset of energy? How is it related to 'energy'? What
are the differences that differentiate it from other forms of energy?


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 can, if you accept that the mass of atoms changes and that you
reject the concept that mass is defined purely as the number of
atoms you have.

If you start from the baseline that mass is defined by the combined
effect of both their number, and their embodied energy, then it is
quite easy.

But you haven't started from anywhere. You haven't defined mass.

See Godel. you can split the world into related bits, and design a
system, that is self consistent, but as to whether the initial
splitting is meaningful..no one can say.

You're not a Jehovah's Witness are you?

Norman Wells wrote:

See Godel. you can split the world into related bits, and design a
system, that is self consistent, but as to whether the initial
splitting is meaningful..no one can say.

You're not a Jehovah's Witness are you?

A bit of a cheek, but what are your academic credentials, Norman? Just
out of interest, not being sarcastic here.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Energy. Bound energy.

Bound in what way?
You claim it changes merely by lifting a weight up by a mm.

In message , Ian
writes

"NT" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 10:43 pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:
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.


The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't
worth getting up to switch things off.


I think it depends on how old the appliance is. For example our old CRT
Sony television was using almost the same power on standby as it was
when turned on. The new LCD HD one uses just 1 watt on standby.

My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Richard Tobin
writes
In article ,
Paul Martin wrote:

0.6nkg = 600ng, which is definitely measurable. You can't use SI units
like that.

I don't see why not:

You have: 600ng
You want: nkg
* 0.6

In the past it was common to use "micro-micro-farads" for picofarads.

The Americans are somewhat bemused when we British call these 'puffs'.
--
Ian

In article ,
Paul Martin wrote:

0.6nkg = 600ng, which is definitely measurable. You can't use SI units
like that.

I don't see why not:

You have: 600ng
You want: nkg
* 0.6

In the past it was common to use "micro-micro-farads" for picofarads.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In article , Bof wrote:
My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

That's creepy - a TV set that watches the viewers!

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
Actually, lending to people who can't pay back is not as financially
daft as it sounds - AS LONG AS you are fairly certain that the price of
what they're borrowing to buy (in this case property) is going to
continue to rise, or at least not fall. Because: when they default, you
get what they _have_ managed to pay, plus the property back to sell.
Cruel and cynical, but lending to those who can't pay is not of itself
financially unsound: it's only lending on something that suddenly
_falls_ in value that is.

Wouldn't the very fact that everybody was doing this actually *cause* the
value to fall?

In other words, you can only make a gain without doing real work if it's
at the expense of others. If they're all doing it, nobody gains, because
there's nowhere for the increase in value to come from.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/