Go stand in the corner, Chris

[Chris Smith]

Are you having troubles with English today? <p>So what part is troubling you? <p>The quantity for mass is E=Mc Square and this is the kinetic energy of an object. <p>This representationof Kinetic energy is valid at any speed.<p>When ever the energy of an object is increased , the mass of the object increases.<p>The increase in energy is related to the increase in mass of the body by E=Mc square.<p>Did you ever find those missing sat tests, or the batteries for your Ouija board?<p>Hey, but fill in the blanks where nothing exists, no one else will? <p>Oops, there are a few here that will.<p>[ September 25, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[rshayes]

No troubles with my English.<p>I am quite aware that "rest" and kinetic" are different words with different meanings.

[Chris Smith]

Was there some thing in these words you didn’t get, or perhaps you thought I said something other than these exact words, Time after time, by the way.<p> Read each statement over and show us where it is flawed, or not correct. <p>It’s a yes or no situation, so don’t run on about the sub paragraphs, clauses, or behind the scenes where you think its all not happening. <p>Is each of these statements true or false? There is NO middle ground here steve. <p>The quantity for mass is E=Mc Square and this is the kinetic energy of an object. <p>This representation if Kinetic energy is valid at any speed. <p>When ever the energy of an object is increased, the mass of the object increases. <p>If a body is lifted in the earths gravitational field so that its potential energy is increased, the increase in energy is related to the increase in mass of the body by E=Mc square.

[terri]

I say again: I never discussed any physics book or the famous equation*. Once again, his monomania is getting in the way of rational thought processes and normal socialized behavior. <p>I told you his responses would be the best evidence of his abuse of free speech.<p>Notice the monomaniacal behavior?<p>Notice the irrational defense mechanisms?<p>Notice the antisocial and crude remarks about my taking it up the rear, on a subject I never discussed?<p>Notice the projection when he challenges people on their use of english, when he has been corrected on these grounds many times in the past?<p>----
* I think once I tranposed the terms as a joke, with the legend, "It all depends on your point of view," as: sqrt(E/m) = c, but I don't think it was on this board.<p>[ September 25, 2005: Message edited by: terri ]</p>

[Chris Smith]

I Notice your sorry a*s looking for the pieces missing from our last encounter?<p>But, humor is where you find it Terri. <p>You have lost weight since the last time we spared, was it sliced off?

[terri]

More evidence above.

[Robert Reed]

Wonder what ever happened to the ' Green Laser Pen' ?<p>Thought a little humor might calm every body down but on this subject, and also being a babe in the woods on physics ,
I have a question-- from what I have been able to ascertain so far on the subject of E=Mc sq. Does this mean that a moving object actually gains mass. For instance the velocity of a 5 lb. x 1 cubic foot object could actually increase to 10 lb. or 2 cubic feet by virtue of increasing velocity alone?
Don't mean to get off the posted subject but I don't think any body is looking at green laser pens anymore.

[Chris Smith]

Yes it does Robert. <p>Mass unlike weight, does increase proportionally with its velocity, which is why the BB, bullet, or brick and every thing else in the universe hurts more when it hits you, the faster it travels.

[rshayes]

Hello Robert,<p>Since you asked a civil question, I think you deserve a civil answer.<p>There is an increase of mass due to velocity, but it is only significant in certain circumstances. Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics cites the example of a synchrotron where the mass of an electron increases 2000 times. This machine is small potatoes compared to more modern particle accellerators.<p>The expresssion for this mass increase is given by:<p>m(v) = m(0)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)<p>This is another one of Einstein's equations.<p>At 1 percent of the speeed of light the increase in mass is about 50 parts per million, which is usually negligable. At 50 percent of the increase is about 15 percent. At 99 percent of the speed of light, the mass is about 7 times its original value.<p>For most practical purposes, the mass doesn't increase significantly with motion.<p>There is also a Lorentz contraction, which tends to shrink linear dimensions in the direction of motion. Maybe one of the hardcore physicists can tell you if this implies a decrease in volume. Defining volume in a moving coordinate system might be tricky.

[Chris Smith]

"There is an increase of mass due to velocity, but it is only significant in certain circumstances"?<p>Certain circumstances? <p>One day, in one kind of universe circumstances? <p>Another day, a new set of rules kind of circumstances? <p>Just keep re-reading the statement, for it applies always, every where, in all universes, everywhere, all the time, always. <p>
THE QUANTITY FOR MASS IS E=MC SQUARE AND THIS IS THE KINETIC ENERGY OF AN OBJECT. <p>
THIS REPRESENTATION IF KINETIC ENERGY IS VALID AT ANY SPEED. <p>
WHEN EVER THE ENERGY OF AN OBJECT IS INCREASED, THE MASS OF THE OBJECT INCREASES.<p>
I really don’t understand why you pretend to understand physics?<p> E=Mc square,... has no between the lines kind of equations.<p> It applies to every thing in the universe, and mass increases with velocity, squared. <p>No ifs, no ands, and certainly no “ but it is only significant in certain circumstances”.<p>Your desperately trying to split hairs, while evading the fact that E=Mc square. <p>It doesn’t work for me, it doesn’t work for physics, period.<p>If I were your physics teacher, I would encourage you to quit the class immediately because I have the feeling and the instinct that you will never get it when it comes to Physics. <p>You read between the lines, you take short cuts, and you make assumptions with out having the facts in evidence. <p>But you state, you claim, and you get it wrong just as fast as you can post, hence, quit while you are behind.<p>[ September 25, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[Ron H]

I think Chris has a really old book. See what Wikipedia has to say about relativistic mass.

[Chris Smith]

Ron<p>Physics doesn’t change over night. We discover new things but E=Mc has not changed, nor has any of the below. <p>And always remember the WEB stands for NOT ENTIRELY TRUE where so much revision and short cuts are on the menu of the day.<p>And yes my book is old, half my age. <p>THE QUANTITY FOR MASS IS E=MC SQUARE AND THIS IS THE KINETIC ENERGY OF AN OBJECT. <p>
THIS REPRESENTATION IF KINETIC ENERGY IS VALID AT ANY SPEED. <p>
WHEN EVER THE ENERGY OF AN OBJECT IS INCREASED, THE MASS OF THE OBJECT INCREASES.

[MicroRem]

Well I for one certainly appreciate the knowledge and wisdom which come from a formal education. I understand, as does Chris I'm sure, that those with a higher lever of education tend to be better equipped to deal with the challenges of work and leadership. Let's look at Chris' post to me about my 22 years military experince "Your as much of the problem as the moron in the white house, because you enable him to lie to the country and flex his gonad muscle called a brain, which led to these problems in the first place" The "moron in the white house" holds an MBA from Harvard and a Bachelor's from Yale. Perhaps if Chris were to continue his education and get on the same educational level as our President, he would have a better understanding of the situation. It's all about formal education, isnt it? <p>best regards<p>Tom<p>ps... In my 22 years of US Coast Guard service, I never really considered myself an "enabler" in allowing the president to "lie to the country and flex his gonad muscle called a brain" hmmm wait a minute... I retired in 2000 when Clinton was still president. I'll give you that one Chris.

[Ron H]

Chris, it's pretty obvious that the writer of the Wikipedia article is aware of the definition of mass that you are promoting. I believe Wikipedia is saying that this is an outdated but not incorrect definition of mass. Here is another article that says the same thing. Google "relativistic mass" or "invariant mass", and I'm sure you will find several more articles containing the same information.

[philba]

Ron, Tom, the reason he should be standing in the corner is, as I think you have seen, that he is unwilling to consider any discussion but 100% adherence to his point, no matter how flawed it be. And when that 100% is not forthcoming, the dissenter is the target of verbal abuse. This is typical of him. It is sad that he can't agree to disagree civilly.