Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:45:43 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
<spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 Sep, 14:16, Boikat <boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:14 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:16:35 -0700 (PDT), Boikat

<boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:55 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Boikat

<boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:56 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Boikat

<boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:28 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:55:07 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:34:31 -0700, Hatunen <hatu...@xxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Boikat
<boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So, do you agree with spinny:  A falling object loses mass because
it's converting some of it's mass into thrust?  

Not thrust. A falling object loses mass because it is losing
potential energy. It's a very small amount of mass, but
nevertheless mass is energy, energy is mass.

No, a falling object in a gravity well gains energy in the form of
Kinetic Energy.

Which comes from the conversion of potential energy to kinetic
energy, so the mass stays constant. But it loses that mass from
the energy when it comes to rest on the floor or the top of your
head.

But see my other post clarifying this.

Lets take a microscopic ball bearing of iron that consists of 1000
iron atoms and drop it down a 1000 foot tall evacuated tube.  After
this ball bearing hits the bottom, how many atoms of iron remain in
the ball bearing, assuming no bits fly off when it hits bottom?

The same number of atoms. Are you under the misapprehension that
the potential and kinetic energy are functions of the number of
iron atoms?

Mass is.

In a sense it is, but the mass is not simply the sum of the
masses of the atoms taken from some nucleide chart. When you gt
down to the teensy weensy of relativistic mass the mass includes
a number of considerations. There is, for instance, the binding
energy of the crystalline or quasi-crystalline structer teh iron
atoms are embeded in. The adds a teensy weensy amount of mass.
Great Zarquad! Keep in mind spinnies original claim: No mass (matter)
can fall into a black hole, therefore, black holes do not exist.
Valence bonding, or super glue holding the atoms of a bead of iron
together to form the bead is not relevent, is it?

If you heat the ball to red hot so it has lots of heat energy,
then you let it cool off, how many atoms does the ball have?

I didn't ask about heating iron to redhot, although, as far as I
know redheat is insufficient to "boil" off atoms.

That depends on how hot you heat it.  Besides, when you are heating
it, you are pumping energy *into* the little iron ball.  

When you lift the iron ball to a higehr shelf you ar also pumping
energy into it. You can heat

it to the point it evaporates, for that matter.  

Sure. But not what I asked, although I could ask a more
compliated question aboout the total mass of the ball and teh
atoms that "evporated" off.

Then what's your point?  Merely making it warm will not change the
number or atoms in the bead.  Another interesting question that jumps
to mind:  How much does "heat" weigh?

What does that have
to do with falling, unless you have the ball falling like a meteor, in
which case it heats up enough to lose atoms due to ablation.  That's
why I specified falling in a vacuum.

You have a concept you need to wrap your brain around:
energy=mass, mass=energy. If you put a ball on a higher shelf it
will have more energy than at the lower position (contibuted by
you by lifting it) and will accordingly have slightly higher
mass.

My mind is already wrapped arounf that concept.  However, the
additional mass is not matter, is it?  

Matter and mass are the same thing. Strictly speaking, I suppose,
mass is a proprty of matter.

It's potential energy, isn't
it?  If I weigh it, it weighs the same as it did on the bottom shelf,
except for the minuted difference cause by being at a different
distance from the center of the earths gravity well, right?

Uh, yeah.

It's not
gained or lost any *matter* has it?  The "matter=mass, mass=energy"
does not mean that a lifted ball has gained *matter* or it would weigh
more than it did on the bottom shelf.

Yes it does.

Does it?  It has more atoms now?



But let's go back: mass is a property of matter.

So it will weigh more on the top shelf?  Does it collect Higgs Bosons
on the way up?

Boikat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your *ALL* CONFUSED. YOUR ALL CRAZY!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for your reasoned response. It is being placed in my
bit bucket.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@xxxxxxx) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conservation of angular momentum
    ... and energy are all conserved here.- Hide quoted text - ... The problem is when a point mass of mass m collides with a lever of ... lever of mass 6m for the ball to stop. ... Therefore, to conserve linear momentum, if the ball stops then the whole ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The nature of motion, anyone have a clue?
    ... “Newton stated that the energy of an object, ... up of its mass times its velocity, ... double the speed of the first ball on impact. ... mass of the water is not equal to the mass of the hydrogen and oxygen. ...
    (sci.physics)