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>