Switch off at the socket?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:36:58 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

[Citation needed]

http://www.eric.ed.GOV/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchVa lue_0=EJ062216&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno =EJ062216

And for an electron increasing its mass due conversion of its own energy

http://www.sciencedirect.COM/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVW-4BJW980-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVer sion=0&_userid=10&md5=f001da71c5c02ef759f8594ea237 d6c5

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to loads or
people's satisfaction. If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only dished
out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all ever, you're
wrong.

Anyway, I didn't ask you to prove a theory. I asked you to demonstrate the
practical effect you said existed.

Which just goes to show how little you know about science at all.

I think not.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to loads
or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make such
a claim.


If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all ever,
you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory
AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole
cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl Popper
for light relief?

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be. They
are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say is that
they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably wrong, but iot
took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is not.


If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.




I think not.

Never a truer word spoken I trow.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood
converted to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course,
enriches it for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If it
acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it
will just get absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon
cycle. Only if it stays there unchanged and immutable will it lock
carbon away, in which case the fertiliser effect is illusory.


I see you are as blatantly ignorant of how soil, fertilizers and
botany in general works, as everything else.

No, not so at all. I simply gave you a choice of two possibilities. You
have chosen the latter.

The largest contribution of e.g. peat, which is mainly carbon, is that
it acts as a matrix to hold other nutrients and water.

It's not actually the carbon but the organic structure of the peat that does
that. As peat contains no free carbon at all, there is no reason whatsoever
to assume that pure carbon in the form of charcoal would work in any similar
way. In fact it all seems rather unlikely to me. But who am I to criticise
what the greenies say is the truth?

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

E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a
situation where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

Humpty Dumpty also made words fit what he wanted them to mean without
regard for what they do. Now what happened to him?

What words? What twisted meanings?


Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand
even Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

I understand them very well, thank you. Why do you think I don't?

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

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers
Dictionary of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared
towards laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of
science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary
'of Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be
found?
The accepted definition from scientists of course.

Of course. All I asked was what is was and where it may be found. Twice
now you've been completely unable to say. Will this be a third time?


Did the chammbers come with the Bumper Book of How Stuff Works as a
job lot?

No, nor should it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one expects.

If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of course is
impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real world, even
scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their
qualifications.

http://www.andrews-corner.ORG/troll.jpg

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all
time. Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow,
converting it into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As it
rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere
again. The same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the
earth it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use
that combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
which is what set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by
those helpful little molluscs for millions of years, now swans
around the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow, which might be right.

calcium hydroxide will not stay calcium hydroxide long in the presence
of carbonic acid dear.

It does actually. In moist conditions a surface layer of calcium carbonate
will be formed over the calcium hydroxide, but that stops further reaction
as the calcium carbonate so formed is very water insoluble.

And cement is a damned site more complex than that.

Of course it is. I gave you the simple version that you might understand.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:15:07 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body.

Now you reveal your ignorance of scientific definitions in addition
to your ignorance of scientific principles.

What you have given in imprecise terms is the definition of amount
of substance (for which the SI unit is the mole).

Definition: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object
or the proportion between force and acceleration referred
to in Newton's Second Law of Motion.

As you are not prepared to use the correct definitions, it is becoming
more and more apparent that any discussion with you is totally pointless.

Furthermore your repeated attempts to ridicule any scientific evidence
suggests that you are acting in the capacity of a troll.