alpine_saint Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 e = energy m = mass c = speed of light It means that as you approach the speed of light, the energy you have gains mass by a square function, meaning more and more energy at colossal rates is required to continue accelerating. If something was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass. It's the reason the speed of light is unattainable, under the conventional phsyical laws of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 e = energy m = mass c = speed of light It means that as you approach the speed of light, the energy you have gains mass by a square function, meaning more and more energy at colossal rates is required to continue accelerating. If something was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass. It's the reason the speed of light is unattainable, under the conventional phsyical laws of the universe. Whoah there horsey. It means that the total energy any object has is it's mass multiplied by the (constant) speed of light. What you are saying is another postulation altogether and is used to explain why we can't attain the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Isnt it a formula? (Note, it has been a few years since I studied anything and my technical terms to both the word "equation" and the word "formula" might be off) Just googled e=mc2 and searches thrown up describe it variously as a theory, formula and equation. Sincere apologies to all for deviating from the topic - stupid woman that I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Well this is a strange tangent this thread has taken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Whoah there horsey. It means that the total energy any object has is it's mass multiplied by the (constant) speed of light. You are talking about kinetic energy which is 0.5mv(2). that is completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 You are talking about kinetic energy which is 0.5mv(2). that is completely different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 You are talking about kinetic energy which is 0.5mv(2). that is completely different. Well not really. Einstein deals with a concept that he terms energy of mass. It mean that mass is transformed into energy,but not energy that you can extract independently. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 You are talking about kinetic energy which is 0.5mv(2). that is completely different. No, the 'E' in the mass-energy formula refers to TOTAL energy, which is kinetic + 'rest' energy based on the intrinsic mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Well not really. Einstein deals with a concept that he terms energy of mass. It mean that mass is transformed into energy,but not energy that you can extract independently. . E = mc(2) is only correct as an object approaches the speed of light, which isnt feasbile. The general rule for all velocities is 0.5mv(2) From Wikipedia : If a force is applied to an object in the direction of motion, the object gains momentum. It also gains energy because the force is doing work. But an object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value – the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity, nor is the kinetic energy given by ½mv2. (The latter is just a very good low-velocity approximation.) The relativistic mass is defined as the ratio of the momentum of an object to its velocity, and it depends on the motion of the object relative to the observer. If the object is moving slowly, the relativistic mass is nearly equal to the rest mass and both are equal to the usual Newtonian mass. If the object is moving quickly, the relativistic mass is greater than the rest mass. As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass tends towards infinity. When a force acts in the direction of motion, the relativistic mass goes up and the momentum goes up, but the speed hardly increases. The relativistic mass is always equal to the total energy divided by c2 shown as: m = E/c2 The difference between the relativistic mass and the rest mass is the relativistic kinetic energy (divided by c2). Because the relativistic mass is exactly proportional to the energy, relativistic mass and relativistic energy are nearly synonyms; the only difference between them is the units. If length and time are measured in natural units, the speed of light is equal to 1, and even this difference disappears. Then mass and energy have the same units and are always equal, so it is redundant to speak about relativistic mass, because it is just another name for the energy. For this reason, in relativity people almost always reserve the useful short word "mass" to mean the rest mass. The rest mass of an object is the relativistic mass as measured when moving along with the object. By definition, rest mass is the same in all inertial frames. For a system of particles going off in different directions, the invariant mass is the analog of the rest mass, and it is defined as the total energy (divided by c2) in the center of mass frame. For a system made up of many parts, linked in (nucleus, atom, planet, star, …), the relativistic mass is the sum of the relativistic masses of the parts, because the energy adds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 No, the 'E' in the mass-energy formula refers to TOTAL energy, which is kinetic + 'rest' energy based on the intrinsic mass. rest energy -> 0 as you approach c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 christ, I'm bored... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 e = energy = DMG m = mass = DMG c = speed of light = DMG DMG = Dont make goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 christ, I'm bored... How do you think we feel ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Is anyone else suppressing an out loud chuckle at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 as it was right at the end of the match thread many might have missed this post from New Zealand Saint (part reproduced below) - I would certainly like to know more - Also my dad has his own IT business stateside and him and a few of his mates (who also own companies in the states, not mega big ones, but big enough to be comofortable) approached Mr. Lowe and the Saints board about buying the club (the would have had enough money to whipe out the debts and give us a bit of spending money (not alot) and Mr. Lowe's exact words to my dad were "I'm not prepared to sell my shares in this club as Mr. Wilde and I are the ones to take us forward and we're making good progress" Assuming this is true. I would be interested to know when New Zealand Saint's dad put this to Lowe. If it was very recently then it puts pay to any thoughts of us going into administration - which IMO is a very good thing. I just wonder if Lowe is wary of selling his shares to anyone as they may be acting on behalf of Crouch. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 12,000 shares went for 12% under the asking price earlier today. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 12,000 shares went for 12% under the asking price earlier today. Fact. Someone is afraid of admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 e=mc² Is that a FACT? No, it's a song by Big Audio Dynamite, ( fronted by Mick Jones, ex of The Clash ) :cool: Anyhow, Laws in physics are merely theories that are yet to be proved incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Not saying violence is the answer but i am puzzled as to how no one has had a serious attempt on Lowe yet. There must be a few physcos out there. He surely is the most hated man on the south coast.Above HR?? considering what he did and he took training at Stoneham with the rest of the Pompey team and nothing happened i doubt anything would do so with RL> Anyway its not right to do so anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 E = mc(2) is only correct as an object approaches the speed of light, which isnt feasbile. The general rule for all velocities is 0.5mv(2) From Wikipedia : If a force is applied to an object in the direction of motion, the object gains momentum. It also gains energy because the force is doing work. But an object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value – the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity, nor is the kinetic energy given by ½mv2. (The latter is just a very good low-velocity approximation.) The relativistic mass is defined as the ratio of the momentum of an object to its velocity, and it depends on the motion of the object relative to the observer. If the object is moving slowly, the relativistic mass is nearly equal to the rest mass and both are equal to the usual Newtonian mass. If the object is moving quickly, the relativistic mass is greater than the rest mass. As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass tends towards infinity. When a force acts in the direction of motion, the relativistic mass goes up and the momentum goes up, but the speed hardly increases. The relativistic mass is always equal to the total energy divided by c2 shown as: m = E/c2 The difference between the relativistic mass and the rest mass is the relativistic kinetic energy (divided by c2). Because the relativistic mass is exactly proportional to the energy, relativistic mass and relativistic energy are nearly synonyms; the only difference between them is the units. If length and time are measured in natural units, the speed of light is equal to 1, and even this difference disappears. Then mass and energy have the same units and are always equal, so it is redundant to speak about relativistic mass, because it is just another name for the energy. For this reason, in relativity people almost always reserve the useful short word "mass" to mean the rest mass. The rest mass of an object is the relativistic mass as measured when moving along with the object. By definition, rest mass is the same in all inertial frames. For a system of particles going off in different directions, the invariant mass is the analog of the rest mass, and it is defined as the total energy (divided by c2) in the center of mass frame. For a system made up of many parts, linked in (nucleus, atom, planet, star, …), the relativistic mass is the sum of the relativistic masses of the parts, because the energy adds up.this all so reminds me of David brent in the Office when the new lad arrived and knew a load more than he did and so kept coming back with bits about the Russian novelist.LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint simes Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Above HR?? considering what he did and he took training at Stoneham with the rest of the Pompey team and nothing happened i doubt anything would do so with RL> Anyway its not right to do so anyway. ...but did I really hear him say on the radio this morning words to the effect that last nights game was "the most uncomfortable night of my football life without a doubt" what a to**er, clearly quite comfortable about relegating us then........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Does this remind you of anyone? A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes All of these character traits are regularly displayed by Lowe and are also the reason why he WILL destroy OUR club. Narcissistic Personality Disorder ... "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" .. the common name given to this personality a in business person which in a criminal would be called "psycopathy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Anyhow, Laws in physics are merely theories that are yet to be proved incorrect. I don't know. I think Boyles's Law and Stokes Law to name but 2 have been proved by many adolescents in run down school laboratories . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 I don't know. I think Boyles's Law and Stokes Law to name but 2 have been proved by many adolescents in run down school laboratories . And Sod's Law works every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 And Sod's Law works every time. Sod's Law applies only to the realm of Metaphysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Sod's Law applies only to the realm of Metaphysics. And here was me thinking it was metabolics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 This is not a suprise to me, as i have heard there was an approach in SEPT. And that too was turned down by Lowe, as he was not prepaired to sell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's There Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 This is not a suprise to me, as i have heard there was an approach in SEPT. And that too was turned down by Lowe, as he was not prepaired to sell! if the "buyers" really wanted Saints I'm sure they could have mounted a pr campaign to apply pressure on RL to sell, and that it would have been leak to the public somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 22 January, 2009 Share Posted 22 January, 2009 Does this remind you of anyone? A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes All of these character traits are regularly displayed by Lowe and are also the reason why he WILL destroy OUR club. Narcissistic Personality Disorder This seems to fit somehow: Woke up this morning, got yourself a gun. Your mama always said you'd be the chosen one. She said you're one in a million, that you've got to burn to shine, That you were born under a bad sign with a blue moon in your eyes. Woke up this morning, all that love had gone. Your poppa never told you about right or wrong. But you're looking good, baby, I believe that you're feeling fine, (shame about it) Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in your eyes. Woke up this morning, world turned upside down, Things ain't been the same since the blues walked into town. But you're one in a million, you got that shotgun shine (shame about it) Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in your eyes, yeah... Just thought I'd share that with you... And if anybody doesn't recognise those words they've been watching the wrong TV programmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now