[rollei_list] Re. OT - Formula One and Perpetual Motion


On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 06:10  PM, A. Lal wrote:

> Hello again Ardeshir,
>
> Regarding F1, noting that you've said contradicts my original=20
> statement. Fans were classified as movable aerodynamic aids and were=20=

> banned for that reason, IIRC.

That's not a reason, that's an excuse!

They were banned because they would make cars with fans (or other=20
movable aerodynamic aids) would CLEARLY outclass cars without. It's=20
hardly debatable: simple logic would indicate that cars with such=20
devices would have so much down-force that they could go as flat out on=20=

corners as they could on straightaways, if the drivers could stand the=20=

g-forces of course!

> Frank Dernie has already given us his plain spoken view from the=20
> inside, and since neither you nor I are as close to the sport as he=20
> is, there we should let the matter rest.

Well, if I remember Frank's words correctly, he was AGAINST the=20
politicians dictating rules which would cut down on what the engineers=20=

were trying to do to improve racing cars! I have nothing against what=20
Frank said, indeed he by and large confirmed what I was saying.

> On a related note I'd be cautious, though, about citing Popular=20
> Science Magazine as a authoritative reference for anything.

Yes, you're right, of course, but what's been written in their articles=20=

on this particular subject (in their September 2004 issue) also stands=20=

up to LOGIC, which is what I was relying upon.

> Regarding your comments on perpetual motion machines, I'll say it=20
> again: the motions (and now you mention Galaxies) in the sense you are=20=

> apparently thinking about, have NOTHING to do with perpetual motion=20
> machines.

I never denied that. But the fact that the laws of physics not only do=20=

not prohibit perpetual motion, but actually DEMAND it (because of the=20
Heisenberg equation, which dictates that an object's momentum - and=20
therefore speed - can never be zero) shows that in PRINCIPLE it is not=20=

impossible to devise a perpetual motion machine. THAT'S what I was=20
saying.

> Also, why on Earth do you need to bring in the Casmir effect, with=20
> which I am familiar, by the way?

If you are, then why not make a logical argument as to just WHY it, or=20=

whatever it is that gives rise to it, cannot be used to devise a=20
perpetual motion machine?

> No doubt people are trying to figure out ways to harness the energy of=20=

> the vacuum (good luck trying to do this on a macroscopic scale), just=20=

> as others are trying to think of ways to open worm holes, but this is=20=

> so far out, that to bring this into a discussion on F1 borders on the=20=

> absurd, don't you think?

*I* did not bring it in: if you recollect, it was Bernard who opened=20
the discussion! I was merely RESPONDING to his derisive statement in=20
that regard. I was contesting his implied suggestion that perpetual=20
motion is impossible.

> In your lifetime you are more likely to see a Stirling-Cycle engine in=20=

> a F1 car, than any of this stuff, IMNSHO.

Yes, I agree. But I was not restricting the discussion to what's=20
possible in MY life-time, which has maybe two or three decades left at=20=

the most.

> By the way, I had a look at your site. Very amusing. "Proofs" that=20
> Einstein and Goedel were wrong, and much other similar material.

I'd LOVE to see any logical refutation of my proofs ... and only if you=20=

can provide any such would you be rightfully entitled to put the word=20
"proofs" within quotes!

Besides, take a look at the web site of my cyber-friend Prof. Paul=20
Marmet erstwhile of the National Research Council of Canada, and a=20
recipient of the Order of Canada (the highest honour Canada bestows on=20=

a civilian), which confirms pretty much everything I have written about=20=

the Theory of Relativity. His web site is at=20
<http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/>. He wrote to me not too far back (on=20=

19th February 2004) saying:

[QUOTE]

Dear friend,
I just read all your paper on the Web on:

Ardeshir Mehta's Critique of the Web Article Entitled: "Most common=20
misunderstandings about Special Relativity (SR)" by Prof. Umberto=20
Bartocci - Your comments about relativity are really excellent.=20
Congratulations.

I wish to put a link to your web page, next time I modify my Web page=20
<http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/CritiqueOfMostCommon...html> I=20
believe you have no objection.

Regards,

Paul Marmet

[END QUOTE]

Prof. Marmet was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of=20
Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, situated in=20
Ottawa, from 1983-1990. =46rom 1967 to 1982 he was director of the=20
laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in=20
Qu=E9bec city. Later, from 1990 to 1999, his teaching and research took=20=

place at the physics department of the University of Ottawa.

A past President of the Canadian Association of Physicists, he also=20
served as a member of the executive committee of the Atomic Energy=20
Control Board of Canada from 1979 to 1984. Marmet has been elected=20
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1973 and was made an Officer=20
of the Order of Canada in 1981.

> Am I correct in assuming this is all a spoof; your way of having a=20
> little sport at the expense of the casual visitor to your site?

Heh-heh! No, you're not.

Cheers!


Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html>





















Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html>

Other related posts: