Switch off at the socket?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

I guess that as the weights are further from the centre of the Earth, they
are moving in faster circles, and therefore have more mass according to
special relativity. Or summat.

--
Max Demian

Norman Wells wrote:
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.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically meaningless.

Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If you go for I THINK anaerobic decomposition, the carbon in the tree
or plant eventually becomes carbon, or hydrocarbon..typically methane.

OK, but how's that gonna happen? Trees are surrounded by air, so there
is no way - in their natural environment - that there'll be much
anaerobic decomposition taking place.

Mind you, you definitely don't want any methane - it's a very potent
global warmer.

That is after all what carbon based fuels are..old swamps. silted over
and left to fester for a few million years.

Agreed, although the climatic conditions were very different back then.
I don't think there's much new peat or coal being formed these days,
although if you've got some links to supporting research, that would be
great.


Oh peat definitely is formed all the time in any suitable place. Its
very slow though.

One of the major worries in East Anglia, where I live, is the continual
oxidation of the Fens since drainage. The ground level has dropped IIRC
about a meter since they were first drained over a couple of hundred
years ago.

Google 'bog oak' for the first steps in coal production as well.



No, you can store it where it wont be subject to oxidation, thats all.

Typically underwater.

I don't think you mean "oxidation", do you? Anyway, didn't you say that
anaerobic decomposition would produce methane?


Ther are nay ways that wood will change over time..normal way is that
the wood is subject to fungal and bacterial attack. That does seem to
need air for the species I am most familiar with in the garden. Old wood
rots, shrinks, becomes fibrous and eventually forms an organic compost.

heat it aneaerobically, and you get charcoal. Which with a bit of
compression, is nearly coal (but not quite: Coals still has the tars in it )

Stick it under water and silt, and it doesn't degraded organically at
all as it were. I dont know the correct word.

But swamps rot differently, and you get the sort of reactions that lead
to methane and peat and eventually oil.


Whatever - I think we can both agree that thinking trees will absorb CO2
to any significant extent is wrong, and designing environmental policies
around it is wrong, too. Whilst *some* of a dead tree *might* end up as
peat or carbon, most of it goes straight back to CO2.

Oh yes, planting trees wont save the planet until a few million years
have passed..

I will say though, that it does actually happen more than you might expect.

I cut down an acre of scrub - mainly hawthorn and blackthorn, about 50
years old. The leaf mould was about 4-6" thick, and was what is
generally termed 'good topsoil' and clearly different from the subsoil
(pure yellow and blue clay) underneath.

I would say that the layer of sol that in general covers this part of
the world - originally boulder clay from the terminal moraines of the
last ice age - is on average about a foot thick. Its very much full of
organic type stuff. You probably get about an inch of carbon rich soil
every thousand years or so, as a final rate of buildup. It actually
happens faster than that, but erosion, farming and leaching and so on
take a lot out. Where there are fairly old woods here, the soil is rich
and deep - the farmland is much less so.

Aerable Farming does tend to almost completely halt soil formation it
seems, and in the fens, leads to its reduction.

I made a raised plateau of subsoil dug out to make a pond. That wasn't
even dignified with any topsoil. Just planted with grass. Its got almost
half an inch of what looks like topsoil on it after 6 years. Mainly leaf
mould as its overhung by trees.




SteveT

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Yes, we should all pay full attention to a fictional work whose main
premise is that a nuclear meltdown in the USA would burrow its way
through the earth all the way to China, shouldn't we?

You daft pillock! That wasn't the main theme at all! The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that time
to refer to a meltdown, and the film makers just used it in the title
because it sounds catchy.

Have you seen the film? It raised some VERY important issues about how
the drive for private profit can compromise safety. That's all.
SteveT

Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
if private profit is taken out of the equation.

Three mile island many not have happened otherwise

Steve Terry

Norman Wells wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.

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.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best
statement about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due
course by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are
problems with two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, because where they overlap they disagree. One day
we'll find something better. Until then, they are both extremely
useful for day-to-day science and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

Then you haven't taken them on board.

The philsophy of science is an absolutely essential study for anyone
who really wants to understand science, rather than parrot crude models
*as if they were fact*. In my day, that was the difference between O
level and A level physics. At O level it was taught as 'fact' - at A
level it was taught as 'these are the best handles we have to date on
this stuff: They are not facts, and never were nor ever can be: Its just
the best we can do and it seems to work'

There has been, always has been and always will be a HUGE debate as to
whether scientific models represent a deeper reality (rational
materialism) or are in fact 'just what works' (Instrumentalism) or any
shade between.

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.

Relativity means, as much as anything else, that nothing goes round
anything, till you pick an arbitrary point.

Newton defined mass as the quality that produces inertia. That's what
mass has been defined at IN SCIENCE ever since. Einstein predicted, that
this quality would change with velocity, and with energy content,
whereas Newton predicted that it was a constant and an inherent
inviolate property of an object. This seems to be your position.

Einstein's formulae when applied to planetary motion, have been shown to
be more accurate.

Ergo we feel on safe ground saying that Einstein is 'right' or 'more
right' than Newton.

HOWEVER Einstein's formulae when applied to clock springs, pendulums,
and car batteries show that the actual mass change is pretty much beyond
the limits of detection of any way we have of measuring mass. WE have a
philosophical choice: To say that Einstein's formulae only apply when
you can detect the difference, which seems to be your position, or to
say that they apply universally, and the fact that you cant detect the
difference means that it is safe to use Newtonian approximations without
the cannon ball landing more than a few nanometers off target, as it were.

Occams Razor says that in the absence of any exact understanding of the
real case, which is always the situation in science, we don't mix and
match formulae according to taste when one formula works over a broader
range than another, and encompasses ALL that the other has to offer and
does more.

I.e. Einstein broadly agrees to a few parts per billion with Newton, at
'human scale' Physics, it disagrees quite a lot at cosmic scales, and is
shown to be more accurate. We therefore say that Einsteins relativity
and the experiments that are dome to see if it is refutable, have failed
to refute it, but have refuted Newton's theories.

Ergo current thinking is that Einsteins picture is more accurate and
complete, and Newtonian mechanics is in fact, in the limit, wrong. That
doesn't make Einstein RIGHT, just 'less wrong, so far' which as Popper
says, is actually the best that may be expected of a scientific theory.

It doesn't make Newton any less useful either. It's a very good
approximation at small masses and low relative velocities. Good enough
to send a rocket to the moon..just. I believe there were relativistic
corrections in that flight as well though. Someone may know more.

All this is about your sloppy use of such expressions as 'what really
happens' and 'scientific proof' both of which are empty statements
philosophically, and that is not mere verbal gymnastics either. Its a
very deep and very pertinent point: We actually know nothing for sure
about anything. What we have are a set of ideas about the world that
seem to work reliably. The average person calls those ideas 'facts' but
the scientist should never ever be deceived into that position, he
should be better than that.

The difference between you and me, I suspect is that when I say 'the
earth goes round the sun' I am actually aware that it is a shorthand
form for 'the mathematical analysis of orbital paths of the entities we
consider to be 'planets' and 'stars' is most simply achieved to a first
order approximation by choosing heliocentric co-ordinates'

YOU actually think that something real and solid called the earth
actually does go round a big fusion reactor in the sky called the sun.

THAT is an act of faith, worthy of a catholic. I have no such faith. I
know too much to ever believe I know, to quote Wittgenstein 'Reality,
(is whatever is the case)'

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.


Lucky you.

Bill

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
[email protected] wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of
the orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its
mass as anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.



That's because they are stationary with respect to the car. If they
were measuring from somewhere else, it would.

You dont understand vectors either..

I do, you don't appear to though.
The car doesn't have different energy just because I move

It does.

Try hitting a car when you are moving at its exact velocity less a
teensy bit, and when you are standing in the road ..


but it does
have different mass according to your use of Einstein's e=mc2.

Steve Terry wrote:
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Yes, we should all pay full attention to a fictional work whose main
premise is that a nuclear meltdown in the USA would burrow its way
through the earth all the way to China, shouldn't we?
You daft pillock! That wasn't the main theme at all! The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that time
to refer to a meltdown, and the film makers just used it in the title
because it sounds catchy.

Have you seen the film? It raised some VERY important issues about how
the drive for private profit can compromise safety. That's all.
SteveT

Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
if private profit is taken out of the equation.


Absolute tosh.

All that is required is an independent inspectorate with teeth.

If that was, in general true of all industry, we would have planes
falling out of the sky every other flight.

The fact is that planes are as safe as the CAA or whatever body it is,
requires them to be.



Three mile island many not have happened otherwise


The safety record in the nationalised coal industry was not any better
than in what's left of it post privatisation.


Steve Terry

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
snip

[ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
:
: So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in Las
Vegas by
: first providing power to the city and fostering its growth, but
by
: the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover Dam
as
: a power source.

Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las Vegas
(as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable and
reliable water supply?
--
Regards, Jerry.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
: Steve Terry wrote:

snip
:
: Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
: if private profit is taken out of the equation.
:
:
: Absolute tosh.
:
: All that is required is an independent inspectorate with teeth.

Absolute tosh, all it needs is to take way any reason to cut
costs (profit) and there is then no need to have the additional
costs of an independent inspectorate with teeth that have to be
paid for out of the profits - in other words what you propose
would be an ever increasing vortex of extra costs being paid for
by ever greater cost cutting to maintain the same level of
profit!...

:
: If that was, in general true of all industry, we would have
planes
: falling out of the sky every other flight.
:
: The fact is that planes are as safe as the CAA or whatever body
it is,
: requires them to be.

Absolute tosh, no airline wants their planes 'falling out of the
sky', it tends to make people book on other airlines (or not use
air travel at all), it's the quickest route to bankruptcy there
is - as a couple of US airlines found out...

The function of the CAA is to work with other 'federal' aviation
authorities and the aircraft industry to achieve common safety
and maintenance schedules etc. (part of that latter work is to
investigate when there has been an air crash).
--
Regards, Jerry.