What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers

[rocco16v at netzero.net (L F)]

Technically, Dan is correct.
Its called "potential" for a reason.
Change "potential energy" to "potential for energy"  which means IF it is set in motion, THEN it has energy.
(wise old professor and I argued...imagine that...a long time on this one before he convinced me)
Larry 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan Smith 
  To: Scirocco Mailing List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 8:48 AM
  Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers


  Admited;y, I haven't really been following this thread, but technically, the paperweight does have energy. It's just in potential, instead of kinetic (when dropped). If I remember phyics class in high school, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, your paperweight has the same amount of energy, all the time. Just in different forms.
   
  Dan

  L F <rocco16v@netzero.net> wrote:
  You can probably go nearly as fast in your 8v as you can in a U2, so I can't imagine where THAT tale originated. 
  and, uh, how you gonna' measure this "increase in mass"? Sounds like an unproveable theory.
  Old Albert didn't say energy and mass are the same thing...look at his equation...it says mass is a contributor to energy.
  I have a three pound paperweight sitting on my desk right now. It has mass. It has no energy. You have to add velocity (drop the paperweight) before there is any energy.
  Look at his equation.
  Look at it again.

  Larry
  (I'm done. )
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Aaron 
  To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F 
  Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:50 PM
  Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers


  Larry


  On 12 Mar 2004, at 01:02, L F wrote:

  > No, Aaron.
  > Mass does not increase with velocity. 

  Actually - it does, but we're talking about a lot of velocity before 
  these effects become measurable. And they have been measured, aboard U2 
  spy planes initially (and I'm sure these findings have been replicated 
  since).

  > If it did, then the converse would be true, i.e. mass would decrease 
  > with a decrease in velocity. 
  > Hence, an item traveling at zero velocity would have minimal mass and 
  > if that item were backing up fast enough, it would have NO mass.

  No - again you're wrong. When we state mass, we're actually stating 
  resting mass.

  > 
  > Seriously, if mass increased according to its velocity, then light 
  > would have a BUNCH of mass. Yet, as we know, light does not have 
  > mass, even at 186,000m/sec.

  Light (photons) are confusing. They behave as if they have no mass (ie 
  they travel at the speed of light), yet they can be deflected by 
  gravitational forces, lensing. This is one of the great mysteries of 
  physics. Quantum theory goes some way to explaining this paradox, but I 
  do not have the education to flesh out these arguments

  > If your 'Roc's mass increased as the velocity increased, tell me, 
  > where does that increased mass come from? 

  It comes from it's (kinetic) energy, e=mc2. Einstein's theory states 
  (put simply) that energy and mass are the same thing.

  > (Okay, Ron, you can delete the comment about "bugs on the 
  > windshield") Increased energy it DOES acquire, but not increased 
  > mass.
  > Don't know where that idea comes from, Aaron,

  Einstein, he's quite a famous physicist.

  > but it makes an interesting theory, kinda' like the "the faster you 
  > go, the slower time goes"

  Absolutely correct - this has been the basis for many science fiction 
  stories. A photon travelling at the speed of light has experienced zero 
  time. Similarly, a human being travelling at the speed of light 
  (impossible) would experience zero time. If a human being could 
  accelerate to the speed of light, fly to alpha centauri and back (a 
  distance of 8 light years round trip) and then decelerate to standstill 
  they would believe that no time had elapsed at all (assuming 
  acceleration and deceleration were instantaneous, another 
  impossibility). Their family and friends however would have been 
  waiting to see them for 8 years.

  > Ha. To both I say, "show me the proof".

  Again, I refer you to Einstein's equation e=mc2 - this is my proof. If 
  you have a valid mathematical objection to this formula then I suggest 
  you present it to the international physics community. I'm sure they'd 
  be acutely interested in your ideas

  > Larry


  Aaron in London


  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Aaron
  > To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
  > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:39 PM
  > Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more 
  > numbers
  >
  > No, Larry - Julie is correct
  >
  > Mass increases with velocity - which is why it's impossible to hit the
  > speed of light (no matter how many valves you have). The faster you go,
  > the more energy you need to accelerate further, exponentially. Until
  > you reach the point that you need infinite energy in order to
  > accelerate an infinite mass.
  >
  > You are correct that energy increases with velocity - this is common
  > sense. A mass with velocity has kinetic energy. This is the energy
  > which rips your car apart when you wipe out.
  >
  > Aaron in London
  >
  >
  _______________________________________________
  Scirocco-l mailing list
  Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l

  _______________________________________________
  Scirocco-l mailing list
  Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
  Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
  _______________________________________________
  Scirocco-l mailing list
  Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l