[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
Well that's easy... 299,792,458 meters per second :-)
With rounding you can say 300 000 kilometers per second or 186 000 miles
per second.
-Raffi
At 07:35 PM 3/13/2004, Michael Abatzis wrote:
>hate to say it, but aaron's right. and the c is for the velocity of light,
>which, god help me, i have finally forgotten. something x 10^6 i think.
>
>
>
>-Michael Abatzis
>New Orleans!
>1988 Scirocco 2L 16v RIP
>1987 Scirocco 2L 16v...
>
>
>
>
>>From: "L F" <rocco16v@netzero.net>
>>To: "Aaron" <aaron@brixtonhill.demon.co.uk>,"Scirocco Mailing List"
>><scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
>>Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more numbers
>>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:52:20 -0800
>>
>>Okay, Aaron, tell me what, in E=MC2, the letters stand for.
>>I think you are calling "C" something different from what Albert said it
>>stood for......
>>
>>Larry
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Aaron
>> To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
>> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more
>> numbers
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Mar 2004, at 20:57, L F wrote:
>>
>> > In your equation you come up with a rather large number for C, when in
>> > actuality C is zero. (using the paperweight example)
>>
>> WTF? Where are you getting this from? C is a constant, in this case -
>> the speed of light, or 300 000 000 m/sec
>>
>> > Therefore, C squared is.....still zero.
>>
>> C squared is 90000000000000000
>>
>> > Therefore, E = zero.
>> > Proves my point.
>>
>> Only thing it proves is that you don't have a clue what I'm talking
>> about
>>
>> >
>> > Oh, and E=MC2 makes no reference to time, other than the oblique way
>> > time is involved in establishing a common number/reference for
>> > velocity.
>>
>>
>> It does make a reference to time - C, speed of light is expressed in
>> meters/second. You can't have velocity without time. Therefore time is
>> an integral part of e=mc2
>>
>> >
>> > Your atomic clocks? Time didn't slow down, the clocks did.
>>
>> The clocks ran slow because they experienced less time. They
>> experienced less time because they were moving at relatively higher
>> velocity than the static clock. The actual figures were far too close
>> to predicted values to be chance - and anyway, atomic clocks are
>> extraordinarily accurate
>>
>> > If TIME had slowed down, the clocks would have read FAST! (ie, the
>> > clocks would have raced ahead of "time")
>>
>> Utter nonsense, time has slowed down in the aircraft, therefore it's
>> clock will be running slower than the one on the ground
>>
>> > I win another round....:)
>>
>> Larry, I've noticed before that you are completely incapable of
>> admitting that you're wrong about anything. This is a shame - you sure
>> as hell know a lot about sciroccos and a lot of people benefit from
>> this knowledge and experience. However, no one can be right about
>> everything all the time! And if they were, life would probably be
>> pretty boring for them as they'd never get the pleasure of learning
>> anything new.
>>
>> However, in this case - you really are wrong. Julie said "I thought
>> mass increased with velosity. E=MC2?" - you told her she was wrong
>> when she wasn't. You were wrong, you are wrong. 80 years of established
>> physics says you're wrong. These same physics (e=mc2) won a world war
>> and have effected world geopolitics ever since, and that's simply not
>> going to go away never mind how often Larry bawls "wrong, wrong,
>> wrong!"
>>
>> > any more?
>> >
>>
>> Be my guest
>>
>> > :)
>> > Larry
>>
>>
>> Aaron in London
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Aaron
>> > To: Scirocco Mailing List ; L F
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 10:12 AM
>> > Subject: Re: What's the fastest can ever take your Scirocco? - more
>> > numbers
>> >
>> > On 13 Mar 2004, at 02:45, L F 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.
>> >
>> > My mistake - the experimenters didn't use a U2 (got mixed up with the
>> > anisotropy experiment), in fact they used 2 commercial airliners
>> > equipped with atomic clocks. They had a third clock on the ground and
>> > all three were perfectly synced. Then they sent one off east, and the
>> > other off west so that both circumnavigated the globe. Then they
>> > looked
>> > at the clocks. And, almost exactly as predicted by the equation E=MC2
>> > -
>> > time passed slower on the aircraft than it did on the ground. This was
>> > widely accepted as empirical proof of Einstein's theory. And if the
>> > time/velocity component, works - then it's extremely likely that the
>> > energy/mass component also works
>> >
>> > > Old Albert didn't say energy and mass are the same thing...look at
>> > > his equation...it says mass is a contributor to energy.
>> >
>> > Actually - that's exactly what the equation says. E=MC2 is all about
>> > converting between energy and mass. mass is not a contributor to
>> > energy, it IS energy, potential energy anyway. It basically says that a
>> > small amount of mass is equal to an enormous amount of energy - and
>> > vice versa. We're not looking at the time/velocity effects here, so we
>> > can take C squared to just be a very large number, 9x10 to the power of
>> > 16, in fact
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > Ok - lets use your example to show you just how much energy your
>> > paperweight possesses. Lets call your 3 pounds 1.5 kilos (for
>> > simplicity's sake):
>> > so e=1.5 x C squared
>> > e=1.5 x 90000000000000000
>> > e= 135000000000000000 Joules
>> >
>> > That's (obviously), shit loads of energy, in fact it's equivalent to
>> > 32300 kilotonnes of TNT, or equivalent to more than 2500 "Little Boy"
>> > A-Bombs like they dropped on Hiroshima. That's how much energy is
>> > locked up in your paperweight - don't drop it!
>> >
>> > Fortunately. It's very difficult to liberate this energy. This is the
>> > amount of energy you'd get if you annihilated your paperweight utterly
>> > - converted all the mass to energy. This occurs readily in the nuclear
>> > furnace of our sun, or any other active star. And, with the (direct)
>> > help of Einstein and his equation e=mc2 we have replicated this effect
>> > to some degree with atomic bombs.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Look at his equation.
>> > > Look at it again.
>> >
>> > I suggest you get yourself a basic physics text book - I'm sure it
>> > would explian these concepts more clearly than me
>> >
>> > > Larry
>> > > (I'm done. )
>> >
>> >
>> > Aaron in London
>> >
>> > > ----- 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page ? download MSN Toolbar now!
>http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Scirocco-l mailing list
>Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l