IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 10th November 2012, 06:12 AM   #441
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Thinking about this Mister Earl, I think it might be more revealing to ask the question "Why do we expect every other particle to be massless and need something to stop them being so?"
The answer to that boils down to wanting to keep gauge invariance, which it's going to be more useful to google yourself or have someone else explain than me.
http://profmattstrassler.com/article...eld-were-zero/ is also a useful and well written article I think.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 06:14 AM   #442
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,757
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I found this little essay helpful: LINK
Thanks!

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This is a skeptics forum where we discuss things rationally, we don't just accept what we're told.
True. We're discussing Farsight's posts rationally instead of just accepting what he tells us.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
When we challenge what we're told and make a robust case against it, we don't expect to be shut up.
Which is why we'd have been surprised if anyone but Farsight had reponded to the robust case being made against his ideas by trying to shut down his challengers:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
OK, you're on my ignore list and you're out of this discussion.
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
When moderators don't do their job, I will make the rules. If you don't want to to play by those rules, you're perfectly free to do so, and you are perfectly free to talk to somebody else.

Farsight's beliefs must be religious, because he regards the Catholic church as his main competitor:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
If that's how you like to operate, you might find the Catholic church more to your liking.

And then there's this:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Uhhhhn. Tubby. You know what makes me laugh at JREF? A guy like you makes a mistake that a physicist would spot immediately. But nobody points it out. Nobody says sorry Tubby, that's back to front. When your physics knowledge improves, you'll start to notice this kind of thing, and then you'll come to appreciate that people here aren't being straight with you.
We've been straight with Farsight. When he's made mistakes that a physicist would spot immediately, everybody points it out.

Everybody says sorry Farsight, you're wrong.

If Farsight's knowledge of physics were to improve, he might start to notice this kind of thing, and come to appreciate it.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 06:22 AM   #443
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres2 per second2) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing.
They're two different measurements of the same thing. Think of the cannonball example. It's travelling at 1000m/s and you apply a constant braking force. Kinetic energy is a distance-based measure of how difficult it is to stop the cannonball. Momentum is a time-based measure of how difficult it is to stop the cannonball. Momentum is directional too, and is a vector rather than a scalar like displacement is a vector whilst distance is a scalar. Note though that the cannonball didn't actually have negative momentum.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities.
The quantities aren't, but they're just different aspects of energy-momentum, see wikipedia.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 06:33 AM   #444
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
I would like to say thanks to all those who educate and clarify in this thread!

JREF
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 06:43 AM   #445
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Note though that the cannonball didn't actually have negative momentum.
I find that a mildly odd thing to say, as if you would have a problem with me saying I observed a cannonball with momentum in my chosen x direction as +100kg m/s and another with -100kg m/s.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 07:22 AM   #446
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,757
My highlighting:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres2 per second2) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing.
They're two different measurements of the same thing. Think of the cannonball example.
Okay. I take two different measurements of the cannonball. One measurement tells me its mass is about 19 kilograms. The other measurement tells me its diameter is about 17 centimeters.

Those measurements are related (by the density of iron), but they don't imply that mass is exactly the same thing as diameter.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities.
The quantities aren't, but they're just different aspects of energy-momentum, see wikipedia.
That Wikipedia article supports my point to the detriment of yours.

It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing. In fact, the article includes several equations from which it is trivial to prove that energy and momentum aren't exactly the same thing. Here's the first of those equations:
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
If the energy E were exactly the same thing as the scalar momentum p, then we could substitute one for the other in that equation:
E2 = m2c4 + E2c2
from which it would follow that the energy E is always the square root of m2c4/(1-c2), which would mean the cannonball's energy depends only upon its mass. Unless you want to argue that the cannonball's energy is independent of its velocity, its energy can't be exactly the same as its scalar momentum.

Maybe you were trying to argue that energy is the same as scalar momentum multiplied by the speed of light. If so, we can repeat the above calculation to get this:
E2 = m2c4 + E2
Unless you want to argue that every cannonball has zero mass, that interpretation doesn't work either.

When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable.

As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 10th November 2012 at 07:27 AM.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 07:36 AM   #447
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Just a complete, possibly ignorant, layman's perspective here. Now I might be understanding the theory of how a Higgs Field is supposed to work completely incorrectly here, but AIUI, it goes something like this....

Shortly after the Big Bang, all particles in the universe had zero mass (and presumably, huge amounts of kinetic energy), and they whizzed around the universe at c. Then the Higgs Field came along (somehow?) impeded their motion to something less than c, and in so doing gave the particles mass.
This is what is said, see for example this CERN webpage. But note that it isn't part of Big Bang cosmology, so much as part of the Higgs hypothesis. See for example this NASA page re the big bang.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Is it remotely possible that Einstein didn't say "the inertia of a body depends upon its interaction with the Higgs field" simply because he had no concept of a Higgs Field Theory in the first place, and that he made the statement the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content" because it was the best fit to the observations available in his time?
No. The Higgs mechanism is only though to be responsible for 1% of the mass of matter, so if you take some body such as a bowling ball, then 99% of its mass is due to its energy content. If instead you took a body that consisted of a box, and you filled it with radiation, then 100% of the added mass is due to the added energy content.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It does not seem to me that Einstein's statement is incompatible with the idea of a Higgs Field giving particles mass, since the action of the Higgs Field in impeding the movement of particles surely must diminish their kinetic energy, and turn some of its energy into mass - E=mc²
I'm afraid it is incompatible. The box doesn't diminish the kinetic energy of the radiation within it. The radiation bounces around inside, and the box hides the kinetic energy. When you learn about pair production and electrons and atomic orbitals where "exist as standing waves" and the Febry-Perot cavity, you realise that the electron is just another "body".
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 07:42 AM   #448
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Nope. That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we have a crackpot, who is struggling with the first law of thermodynamics, telling us that entirety of the particle physics community is wrong because he and he alone understands the true words of Einstein whilst simultaneously dismissing the work of the person Einstein explicitly described as "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began".
OK Tubby, I'm not discussing this with you any more.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:14 AM   #449
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Farsight, I'm aware of all that: a book on a shelf has more energy than one on the floor

That doesn't mean that it has more kinetic energy than one on the floor

The fact that it's possible to convert energy from one form to another doesn't mean that it had "hidden kinetic energy" all along, it simply means that energy is conserved
It does Robo. When you drop the book, its kinetic energy doesn't appear because of some kind of spring mechanism. Have a look around at "potential energy is kinetic energy". Or work it through with a photon in a gedanken box. The massless photon adds mass to the system, and like Susskind, we say the box itself has negligible mass which we can safely ignore. When you raise the box up to the shelf, you add more energy to that system. Take two identical boxes, one on the floor and one on the shelf, and open them. Each is a radiating body losing mass, and you find that more kinetic energy is delivered by the upper photon. When it was in the box you couldn't see this extra kinetic energy, and called it potential energy. But all you ever had in the box was photon kinetic energy. Use the wave nature of matter to step up from a photon-in-a-box to a book.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:18 AM   #450
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
OK Tubby, I'm not discussing this with you any more.
Fine. But I will continue to point where you are wrong and you will have no opportunity to redress the argument. It is you and you alone that will lose out.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:27 AM   #451
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It does Robo. When you drop the book, its kinetic energy doesn't appear because of some kind of spring mechanism. Have a look around at "potential energy is kinetic energy". Or work it through with a photon in a gedanken box. The massless photon adds mass to the system, and like Susskind, we say the box itself has negligible mass which we can safely ignore. When you raise the box up to the shelf, you add more energy to that system. Take two identical boxes, one on the floor and one on the shelf, and open them. Each is a radiating body losing mass, and you find that more kinetic energy is delivered by the upper photon. When it was in the box you couldn't see this extra kinetic energy, and called it potential energy. But all you ever had in the box was photon kinetic energy. Use the wave nature of matter to step up from a photon-in-a-box to a book.
In an attempt to justify your claims you invent another thought experiment. When it is pointed out to you that your interpretation of your thought experiment is wrong you invent another thought experiment (and pretend it is the same one). This is not the sign of someone with a cogent argument.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:47 AM   #452
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I'd agree that this is the usual way to take that formula.
Thanks edd.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
Of course not. It patently says absolutely diddly about angular momentum.
Maybe your post had the quotes around the wrong thing? E=hf contains the h term, which is the constant of action, and action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
You appear to continue to be mistaken about waves generally and angular motion and circular motion. Plenty of waves exhibit neither.
I know plenty, edd. Electromagnetic waves exhibit spin angular moment which is quantized ±ħ, and can also exhibit orbital angular momentum which isn't quantized.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:52 AM   #453
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Pardon my arm-chair-science intrusion, but I'm confused. The Higgs is the particle that gives other particles mass by interacting with the Higgs field. Correct?
No. It is said that particles acquire mass by interacting with the Higgs field. The Higgs boson is said to be an excitation of that field.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
And the Higgs particle has mass. ... So the Higgs has a Higgs? Does that sub-Higgs have a sub-sub Higgs? How far down does the stack of turtles go?
All the way down. What they don't say is how the Higgs boson has a mass of 125GeV, they gloss over the fact that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy, and that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 08:54 AM   #454
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
In order to understand and gain a deep appreciation of the necessary difference between energy and momentum, a study of Hamiltonian mechanics would be very enlightening.
But then -- that's real physics.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:04 AM   #455
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I find that a mildly odd thing to say, as if you would have a problem with me saying I observed a cannonball with momentum in my chosen x direction as +100kg m/s and another with -100kg m/s.
I don't have a problem with it, I just recognise that the negative sign is merely a convention of measure. Think about it this way: if a 1kg cannonball is motionless with respect to you, you'd say it has zero momentum. If it's moving at 100m/s in some direction relative to you, coming right at you, it doesn't. But you don't say "That's OK, I'll just stand here. That cannonball has got less than zero momentum. It can't do me any harm".
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:21 AM   #456
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Okay. I take two different measurements of the cannonball. One measurement tells me its mass is about 19 kilograms. The other measurement tells me its diameter is about 17 centimeters...
That's a straw-man, Clinger, and you know it. We were talking about a cannonball in space with a given mass and a given motion relative to you. You apply a constant braking force to bring it to a halt, and you say its momentum is defined in terms of force x time whilst its kinetic energy is defined in terms of force x distance. But the cannonball does not have two two totally different properties called momentum and kinetic energy. You cannot remove one without removing the other. That's why in physics we talk of energy-momentum.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing.
Of course not. I didn't either. I said they're two different measures of energy-momentum. See my response to edd above re negative momentum.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Maybe you were trying to argue that energy is the same as scalar momentum multiplied by the speed of light. If so, we can repeat the above calculation to get this:
E2 = m2c4 + E2
Unless you want to argue that every cannonball has zero mass, that interpretation doesn't work either.
Don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable. As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.
It doesn't refute what I said. It only refutes what you tried to pretend I said. Come on Clinger, you're going to have to do better than that.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:21 AM   #457
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
I might prefer to think of it in a more appropriate manner then, Farsight.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:26 AM   #458
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
With the exception of RC's posts from a few days back, I've caught up. But right now, I've got to go. Do let me know if there's anything I've missed.

ETA: noted edd. Negative signs can be misleading at times. I think binding energy is a case in point.

Last edited by Farsight; 10th November 2012 at 09:30 AM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:30 AM   #459
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
All the way down. What they don't say is how the Higgs boson has a mass of 125GeV, they gloss over the fact that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy, and that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content.
Mister Earl, "they" don't not say any of these things apart from the last bit (which is Farsight getting his knickers in a twist about basic accounting of rest mass and kinetic energy).
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 10:59 AM   #460
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,757
I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It takes momentum as a scalar quantity (the magnitude of vector momentum), but it doesn't say energy and momentum are exactly the same thing.
Of course not. I didn't either. I said they're two different measures of energy-momentum.
Ho ho ho.

Here's exactly what you said:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Energy and momentum aren't two different things.
Now you're claiming to have said they're "two different measures of energy-momentum."

Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable. As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.
It doesn't refute what I said. It only refutes what you tried to pretend I said.
It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 11:11 AM   #461
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.


...

It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.
Exactly!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 11:18 AM   #462
lenny
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxford
Posts: 999
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
That's a straw-man, Clinger, and you know it. We were talking about a cannonball in space with a given mass and a given motion relative to you. ... But the cannonball does not have two two totally different properties called momentum and kinetic energy. You cannot remove one without removing the other.
Tis seems a bit more like a counter example than a straw man.

He did not say they were "totally different" in fact he noted that they were related by the density of iron.

But to clarify, lets take your claim that you cannot remove one without the removing the other, all we need do is find a case where energy is more than kinetic energy:

Fire the cannon straight up on the moon (to remove air resistance)
When it leaves the mussel mv and 1/2 mv^2 are related.
At the top of its trajectory, it has the same energy, but zero momentum.

Does this not count as changing one without changing the other?
lenny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:52 AM   #463
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.
I'm not denying my own words. And please, if you're going to link to my words, do link to my post instead of yours.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Ho ho ho. Here's exactly what you said:

"Energy and momentum aren't two different things".

Now you're claiming to have said they're "two different measures of energy-momentum."
Yep. Shall we have a look at what I did say in post 417? Here we go:

"Energy and momentum aren't two different things. They're just two different aspects of the same thing. Think of a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s. Try stopping it in a second. You exert a constant opposing force. In the first tenth of a second it pushes you back a long way. In the next tenth it pushes you back a lesser distance, and so on. After 0.5 seconds the distance you've gone is less than the distance you're going to go. That's where the KE=½mv² comes from. There's an integral in it, and it's a way of describing the stopping distance for a given force applied to a given "mass" moving at a given speed. Momentum however is a force x time measure. After 0.5 seconds you're halfway through the stopping time, so it's a linear p=mv. They're two different measures of something very real, not two different abstract quantities conserved by the invariant laws of physics. And like I said, it's called energy-momentum for a reason."

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?
Neither. I made it clear enough. They're two different aspects of the same thing. They're two different measures of energy-momentum.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.
No it doesn't. What I said refutes what you're saying. Now do please try to make a sensible contribution to the discussion Clinger.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:18 AM   #464
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by lenny View Post
Tis seems a bit more like a counter example than a straw man. He did not say they were "totally different" in fact he noted that they were related by the density of iron.
Noted, lenny.

Originally Posted by lenny View Post
But to clarify, lets take your claim that you cannot remove one without the removing the other, all we need do is find a case where energy is more than kinetic energy:

Fire the cannon straight up on the moon (to remove air resistance)
When it leaves the mussel mv and 1/2 mv^2 are related.
At the top of its trajectory, it has the same energy, but zero momentum.

Does this not count as changing one without changing the other?
No. When we fire the cannonball straight up, it's slowing down due to gravity. When it reaches its maximum height it's momentarily motionless. At that moment it isn't moving. So it has zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.

Conservation of energy means that the kinetic energy hasn't mysteriously vanished, it's now potential energy, which is in the cannonball. In previous posts I've referred to this as "hidden kinetic energy", but it's hidden momentum too. The thing that's hiding is energy-momentum, and it makes the cannonball's mass increase a little. In similar vein its mass increases a little when you heat it up.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:49 AM   #465
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Conservation of energy means that the kinetic energy hasn't mysteriously vanished, it's now potential energy, which is in the cannonball.
Conservation of energy does mean the kinetic energy has vanished (at least in that reference frame). In fact that is exactly what the first law of thermodynamics has told us.

Quote:
In previous posts I've referred to this as "hidden kinetic energy"
Well that is just plain stupid terminology that nobody other than Farsight uses and which could only confuse rather than enlighten.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:09 AM   #466
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,757
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.
I'm not denying my own words. And please, if you're going to link to my words, do link to my post instead of yours.
Sorry, Farsight, but when I'm addressing only one of your mistakes, clarity is served by linking to my own post in which I quote you committing that one specific mistake instead of linking to the multitude of mistakes to be found within your entire rambling post.

ETA: Readers who want to slog through your entire post can do so by clicking on the link provided by my quotation of your post.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?
Neither.
So your argument is based upon equivocation: When you find it convenient to say energy and momentum are not different things, you conflate them. When called on it, you deny having said they are not different things.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.
No it doesn't. What I said refutes what you're saying. Now do please try to make a sensible contribution to the discussion Clinger.
The readers of this thread can and will decide for themselves whose contributions have been sensible.

When the core of your argument is equivocation, as when you say energy and momentum are "neither" different things nor not different things, your argument is not sensible.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 11th November 2012 at 05:14 AM. Reason: added ETA
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:11 AM   #467
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post

No. When we fire the cannonball straight up, it's slowing down due to gravity. When it reaches its maximum height it's momentarily motionless. At that moment it isn't moving. So it has zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.

https://www.facebook.com/events/4580...=plan_reminder
Remember to get out of the way after you have fired the cannonball vertically.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:32 AM   #468
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
 
Stimpson J. Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
Am I losing my mind or did a bunch of posts disappear? I distinctly remember responding to Farsight's last response to me, and reading his response to that.

Originally Posted by Farsight
The inertia of body depends upon its energy content. How many times do I have to say it?
Why do you think I am disputing this? I am well aware that an object's inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I am also well aware that this is perfectly compatible with the Higgs mechanism.

For example:
An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. That means that even when it is not moving its inertial-mass is 0.511MeV/c^2. But when it's not moving its total energy is 0.511MeV. So its inertia is proportional to its energy content. As it speeds up it gains energy.

An electron moving at 0.8c would have a total energy of about 0.851MeV. That's about 0.340MeV of kinetic energy on top of its rest-mass energy equivalence of 0.511MeV. In this case the electron's total inertial-mass is 0.851MeV/c^2. So its inertia is still proportional to its energy content.

So where is the principle of inertia depending on energy content being violated? The Higgs mechanism just puts a non-zero value on the minimum energy that a particle can have (which obtains when the particle is not moving). It doesn't change the relationship between inertia and total energy at all. It does change the relationship between inertia and kinetic energy. But as I explained before, that in no way violates E=mc^2.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
which means they have non-zero inertia even when they are not moving. They then have more inertia when they are moving, because their relativistic mass (the m in E=mc²) is greater.
Wrong. The given expression is (...). That doesn't quite get to the bottom of things, but no matter, the important point is that the m in E=mc² is rest mass, not relativistic mass.
No, the equation can be used to relate any mass to its energy equivalent. For example, the following are both valid:
E_t = m_ic^2: Here E_t is the total energy, and m_i is the inertial mass.
E_r = m_rc^2: Here E_r is total energy of the particle when it is at rest (the energy equivalent of its rest-mass), and m_r is its rest-mass.

And this is the critical point: If you solve for E=mc^2 with m=rest_mass then what you get for E is not the the total energy of the particle. It is just the rest_energy. And if you solve for E=mc^2 with E=total_energy of the particle then what you get for m is not the rest_mass of the particle. It is the total inertial_mass of the particle.

Originally Posted by Farsight
And vice versa, wherein kinetic energy in the guise of a photon is given as E=hf, the momentum being p=hf/c. In pair production we start with a photon which has no mass term m, and we end up with an electron and a positron which do. If we say they aren't moving there's no momentum term p. After annihilation there is but there's no mass term m. There's a flipflop between mass and momentum.
Nope. Doesn't work. You need two photons to form an electron-positron pair. And if you go the inertial frame where the total combined momentum of those two photons cancel out, the total energy of those two photons as measured in that frame must exceed 1.022MeV. And the total combined momentum of the electron and positron will again be zero in that frame.

Likewise, annihilation is always into two photons. Again, going to the inertial frame where the combined momentum of the electron and positron is zero, the combined momentum of the two photons will also be zero. And of course their total energy as measured from that frame will be equal to 1.022MeV plus the combined kinetic energy of the electron and positron.

So no, there is no flip-flop between mass and momentum. Momentum is always conserved. There is a flip-flop between rest-energy and kinetic-energy.

Originally Posted by Farsight
It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong.
Nonsense.

Inertial mass is proportional to total energy. Rest mass of some particles is affected by the Higgs mechanism. If a particle has nonzero rest mass due to interaction with the Higgs field, that does not contradict the fact that its inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I suppose you might think it would if you did not understand that a particle's rest energy is proportional to its rest mass. But then it would be you contradicting E=mc^2. Or at least misunderstanding it.
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Stimpson J. Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:46 AM   #469
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong.
This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion. Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us. But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe.

Pretty simple, really.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 06:00 AM   #470
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion. Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us. But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe.

Pretty simple, really.
I'm not even sure what he means when he says inertia. Is he using it as a synonym for mass or momentum or what? I've always thought of it as a concept, not a property of an object.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 06:16 AM   #471
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I'm not even sure what he means when he says inertia. Is he using it as a synonym for mass or momentum or what? I've always thought of it as a concept, not a property of an object.
He means mass, I think.

In the Higgs mechanism, an electron at rest has energy E that comes from its interaction with the Higgs field. Since m=E/c^2 the electron therefore has a non-zero mass, and hence inertia (when you act on it with a force F, its acceleration is F/m).
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 06:38 AM   #472
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
He means mass, I think.
That was my best guess. Why he can't just say mass though..?

Quote:
In the Higgs mechanism, an electron at rest has energy E that comes from its interaction with the Higgs field. Since m=E/c^2 the electron therefore has a non-zero mass, and hence inertia (when you act on it with a force F, its acceleration is F/m).
Sure.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:23 AM   #473
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Why do you think I am disputing this? I am well aware that an object's inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I am also well aware that this is perfectly compatible with the Higgs mechanism.
Read Einstein's 1905 paper. Note "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". No way is that in any way compatible with "the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with a space-pervading field".

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
For example: An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. That means that even when it is not moving its inertial-mass is 0.511MeV/c^2. But when it's not moving its total energy is 0.511MeV. So its inertia is proportional to its energy content. As it speeds up it gains energy.
Not proportional to its energy content. Is a measure of its energy content.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
An electron moving at 0.8c would have a total energy of about 0.851MeV. That's about 0.340MeV of kinetic energy on top of its rest-mass energy equivalence of 0.511MeV. In this case the electron's total inertial-mass is 0.851MeV/c^2. So its inertia is still proportional to its energy content.
Is still a measure of its energy content.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
So where is the principle of inertia depending on energy content being violated?
Where it's replaced by something else.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
The Higgs mechanism just puts a non-zero value on the minimum energy that a particle can have (which obtains when the particle is not moving).
It doesn't actually do that. I mentioned binding energy yesterday. When an electron binds with a proton, in the 1s orbital there's a 13.6ev mass deficit. The system has less mass/energy than the individual components at rest.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
It doesn't change the relationship between inertia and total energy at all. It does change the relationship between inertia and kinetic energy. But as I explained before, that in no way violates E=mc^2.
It casts it aside Stimpson. Imagine you have a photon in a gedanken mirror-box. The mass of the box is so negligible that we can ignore it, like Susskind said in the lecture Robo linked to. The photon adds mass to that system, and like Susskind said about his box of radiation, it's got nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. The box is a body, its inertia depends upon its energy content, its mass is a measure of its energy content. When it radiates, its mass is reduced. The electron is a body too. When it radiates in annihilation, its mass is reduced to nothing and it no longer exists. It would violate what Einstein said to assert that the mass of some bodies is a measure of the energy content, and the mass of some other bodies isn't.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
No, the equation can be used to relate any mass to its energy equivalent. For example, the following are both valid:
E_t = m_ic^2: Here E_t is the total energy, and m_i is the inertial mass.
E_r = m_rc^2: Here E_r is total energy of the particle when it is at rest (the energy equivalent of its rest-mass), and m_r is its rest-mass.
See this bit of wiki and note the quote at the bottom: "It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m".

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
And this is the critical point: If you solve for E=mc^2 with m=rest_mass then what you get for E is not the the total energy of the particle. It is just the rest_energy. And if you solve for E=mc^2 with E=total_energy of the particle then what you get for m is not the rest_mass of the particle. It is the total inertial_mass of the particle.
I know about rest mass and inertial mass.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Nope. Doesn't work. You need two photons to form an electron-positron pair. And if you go the inertial frame where the total combined momentum of those two photons cancel out, the total energy of those two photons as measured in that frame must exceed 1.022MeV. And the total combined momentum of the electron and positron will again be zero in that frame.
I know this too. Check around and you'll see that I'm forever saying +1022keV.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Likewise, annihilation is always into two photons. Again, going to the inertial frame where the combined momentum of the electron and positron is zero, the combined momentum of the two photons will also be zero. And of course their total energy as measured from that frame will be equal to 1.022MeV plus the combined kinetic energy of the electron and positron.
And that. I assume you meant two or more photons, see this.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
So no, there is no flip-flop between mass and momentum. Momentum is always conserved. There is a flip-flop between rest-energy and kinetic-energy.
Yes there is. You aren't paying enough attention to energy-momentum and you're being led astray by the vector-quantity aspect of momentum. Take a look at energy-momentum relation on wikipedia. See where it says the equation simplifies to E=mc² for a body in its rest frame. Then a bit lower down it says if the object is massless then the energy momentum relation reduces to E=pc as is the case for a photon. Two photons each have momentum p=hf/c. When you insist that one has negative momentum, countering the positive momentum of the other, E=pc or E=hf and p=hf/c then forces you to claim that E is negative. It isn't. It's like what I was saying to edd about the cannonball. It's got no momentum if its sitting there in front of you, but if it's coming at you, it has. It doesn't matter if you say it's got positive momentum when it's coming at you this way → and negative momentum coming at you this way ←. It only has negative momentum in a book-keeping sense. You know you can't stop that cannonball in -5 seconds. You know you're going to have to duck.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
[Re It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong. ]
Nonsense.
It isn't nonsense Stimpson. That's where the buck stops. When you say the inertia of a body doesn't depend upon its energy content but instead depends on that body's interaction with the Higgs field, you've contradicted Einstein.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Inertial mass is proportional to total energy. Rest mass of some particles is affected by the Higgs mechanism. If a particle has nonzero rest mass due to interaction with the Higgs field, that does not contradict the fact that its inertial mass is proportional to its total energy.
Einstein said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Not something else. So when you assert that the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field, you're contradicting Einstein.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
I suppose you might think it would if you did not understand that a particle's rest energy is proportional to its rest mass. But then it would be you contradicting E=mc^2. Or at least misunderstanding it.
I'm not misunderstanding it. I've bought the T-shirt. And it says E=mc² not E∝m.

Last edited by Farsight; 11th November 2012 at 10:26 AM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:36 AM   #474
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Sorry, Farsight, but when I'm addressing only one of your mistakes...
My post 417 makes it clear that I didn't make a mistake, and so readers of this thread will be able to decide for themselves about your sincerity.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:42 AM   #475
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Poor old Einstein. I'm sure he wouldn't have the sort of problem with the Higgs mechanism that you suggest - this sort of interaction with a field was surely not something he was thinking about when he wrote what you quote so often above. That he apparently omitted something does not mean that he intentionally excluded it.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:45 AM   #476
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion.
I'm not confused at all sol.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us.
At last! Somebody else has paid attention to what Einstein actually said.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe. Pretty simple, really.
Energy content depends on how much energy you put in. Sounds like you've got a basic confusion there sol.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:58 AM   #477
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm not confused at all sol.
You may well not be confused. In that case you are just plain wrong.

Quote:
At last! Somebody else has paid attention to what Einstein actually said.
Well you certainly don't.

Quote:
Energy content depends on how much energy you put in. Sounds like you've got a basic confusion there sol.
Dear God.
I start with a million dollars. I buy a house worth 511,000 dollars. I'm left with a house and 489,000 dollars. The cost of the house was set by the realtor and determined by the size location and so on of the property.
I start with a million electron volts. From that million electron volts I create an electron (using some magical process). I'm left with an electron and 489,000 electron volts. The energy "cost" of the electron was determined by it's rest mass which is determined by how the particle interacts with the Higgs field.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 11:09 AM   #478
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Poor old Einstein. I'm sure he wouldn't have the sort of problem with the Higgs mechanism that you suggest - this sort of interaction with a field was surely not something he was thinking about when he wrote what you quote so often above. That he apparently omitted something does not mean that he intentionally excluded it.
That's a handy way to try and dismiss Einstein. Assert that he wouldn't have a problem with something that totally contradicts him.

I'm sure Einstein would have a big problem with it. He would reiterate that mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else. He'd point out that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy. He'd remind you how a massless photon in a box adds mass to that system. Then he'd point out that when a wave is propagating linearly at c we call its resistance to change-in-motion momentum. But when it's a standing wave in a box we call its resistance to change-in-motion inertia. Then he'd be pointing out that an electron is a body, and likening electron-positron annihilation to a radiating body losing mass, and showing you atomic orbitals where electrons exist as standing waves. And when you dismissed all that too, he would push his chair back, say ho ho ho in his rich deep voice, and show you the door.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 11:12 AM   #479
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Quote:
Two photons each have momentum p=hf/c. When you insist that one has negative momentum, countering the positive momentum of the other, E=pc or E=hf and p=hf/c then forces you to claim that E is negative.
Nope. The p in E=pc is the magnitude of the momentum vector which is always positive. Thus if I have a photon with momentum p1 (a vector) it will have energy E=|p1|c - a positive number times a positive number.
If I have a photon with momentum p2 (a vector) it will have energy E=|p2|c - a positive number times a positive number.

The combined energy of the system is then

|p1|c + |p2|c (a positive scalar)

while the combined momentum is

p1 + p2 (a vector).

If the two momentum vectors are of equal magnitude and antiparallel then

p2 = - p1

and the combined momentum is

p1 - p1 = 0.

However, the total energy is

|p1|c + |p1|c = 2|p1|c (a positive scalar).

Last edited by Tubbythin; 11th November 2012 at 11:20 AM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 11:25 AM   #480
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
That's a handy way to try and dismiss Einstein. Assert that he wouldn't have a problem with something that totally contradicts him.
It doesn't totally contradict him. That is your assertion based on not understanding Einstein and particle physics.

Quote:
I'm sure Einstein would have a big problem with it.
You're sure pair production violated momentum conservation too.

Quote:
He would reiterate that mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else.
Nobody is saying anything else.

Quote:
He'd point out that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy.
Everybody knows that. Why would he bother to point it out?

Quote:
He'd remind you how a massless photon in a box adds mass to that system. Then he'd point out that when a wave is propagating linearly at c we call its resistance to change-in-motion momentum. But when it's a standing wave in a box we call its resistance to change-in-motion inertia. Then he'd be pointing out that an electron is a body, and likening electron-positron annihilation to a radiating body losing mass, and showing you atomic orbitals where electrons exist as standing waves. And when you dismissed all that too, he would push his chair back, say ho ho ho in his rich deep voice, and show you the door.
I see, in Farsight's world Einstein == Santa Claus.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.