[rollei_list] Re. OT - Formula One and Perpetual Motion
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:29:12 -0500
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:
