Corwin

Gee... I dunno.... of course there isn't any energy invoved in the rock pushing against the table... none whatsoever. </sarcasm>

As far as how much heat? I couldn't give you a number... wild guess? A ten thousandth of a calorie? Two kilos isn't much.

The fact that YOU don't notice it in everyday life means all jack shit. You don't notice relativistic effects in every day life either.

tronvillain

So, you are totally incapable of providing number or even a basis for determining a number. Pathetic.

Corwin

Well... why don't you just hold still for this baseball bat coming right at your head then? After all... kinetic force isn't energy.... you've got nothing to worry about, right?

Suppose you tell me exactly how much time slows down for an object travelling at .93C? It's just as relevant. For that matter, you could also tell me exactly how much effect a butterfly beating its wings in China influences a storm forming in the Carribean? Ah... didn't think so.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

tronvillain

Time will appear to slow down approximately eighty-one percent relative to the stationary reference frame. I have a theory to work with, while you do not. Will you admit that you have absolutely no way to calculate this heat of yours?

Now, force is not energy - unless by "kinetic force" you mean "kinetic energy" it is not energy. Stop pretending one is the other and then using common sense examples in an attempt to prove your position.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Liastaob

The wonderful thing about science, Corwin, is that everything is falsifiable.

Please go test your "motionless object on table generates energy in the form of heat" theory. Report back your findings. Until then we'll stick with what conventional physics claims.

--Dan

tronvillain

I assume you added this because you realized I might be able to give an answer to the relativity question:
So, you are claiming that the production of your heat is so complex that it cannot be calculated? Nice try.

Corwin

Gee lia... if I had a cleanroom and a thermometer that was that sensitive I might be able to.

Of course if I had that sort of equipment I'd have better things to do than post on message boards....

Corwin

So possibly you could explain to poor little crazy deluded psudeoscientific me how force is NOT energy? Or is all you have 'noitisn'tnoitisn'tnoitisn't?'

Deimos

This is getting quite funny.

Corwin, put up or shut up. If you can lay out the sequence of calculations that show how a mechanical pressure distribution leads to the heating of an object then go for it. The constraint on this is that the objects dimensions are unchanged by the application of the pressure. Otherwise quit acting like a moron .

Here, I'll give you something to chew on :

Tell us how much this column would be heated by the application of the pressure.

Corwin

Actually no, I posted it because I thought of it later and wanted to add it.

And what I'm claiming is that you can't provide specific numbers for the same reason I can't. I don't have the formulae in front of me. Since when does this mean they don't exist?

Again, we're talking basic theory here. You're blowing it up into something it isn't. You do have a tendancy to do that....

But then of course I'm just wrong... force isn't energy and pressure doesn't produce heat. (Sterling engine? What's that?) And of course I'm just some blissed out nutcase for even believing for a second that cold fusion could work.... pull the other leg.

Ironically enough.... I know a bunch of people like you Tron.... hardcore bible thumping fundamentalists. When you provide them with an argument their only defense is to focus on minutae that really aren't important to the central point. Of course this distracts people from that point... but you wouldn't do that, now.... would you?

Again, how is force NOT energy?