[rollei_list] Re: Re. OT - Formula One and Perpetual Motion
- From: "A. Lal" <alal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:08:10 -0500
SNIP
>
> That's not a reason, that's an excuse!
Why? As Frank has mentioned, the politicians within the governing body
decide on what is permitted and what is not, and that's it. The sport is
not solely technology driven; other factors are at work.
>
> 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!
This make no sense. Given the huge budgets, do you really believe that
if non-IC engines, fans, or other technologies were allowed, that only
one team would use these? The regulations are set and you win or lose
within the letter, if not the spirit, of those regulations.
SNIP
>
> > 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.
May I suggest you read up on the uncertainty principle & the second law
of thermodynamics in the published (not web based) literature?
> > 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?
The short but sweet logical argument is that such a machine can't be
made, because a really good draftsman who is, both, familiar with the
Casimir effect and can make microscopic machine drawings is impossible
to find.
The serious answer is that it is not my specialty, and I have no
interest in making it so. I go by what I have seen (by no means
comprehensive) in the literature.
If you have any serious ideas on the subject, write them up and submit
them for publication to a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > 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.
And so you offered the atom as an example of a perpetual motion machine
(which is wrong anyway), in the context of cars? For heavens sake....
SNIP
>
> > 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!
There is nothing to refute in your "proofs" on relativity. In fact, they
are so far off the mark that they are actually quite funny, which is why
I asked you if the site was a spoof. If you think the "proofs" are
sound, send them to one of the peer-reviewed learned journals and have
them published.
SNIP
> 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=
>
SNIP
I have no doubt that he is a very fine spectroscopist. He seems to think
think that Newtonian Mechanics is OK and Relativity is unneccessary.
He's quite wrong, and he's not the only one.
> > 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.
I feared this might be the case. There are a number of very fine
Universities in Canada. May I urge you to put your web based learning on
hold and instead take University based courses in whatever subject:
Relativity, Number theory, etc., that interests you? You will find it
quite rewarding and your web site will be better off for it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.850 / Virus Database: 578 - Release Date: 27-Jan-05
Other related posts:
