[rollei_list] Re: Re. OT - Formula One and Perpetual Motion
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:13:45 -0800
A. Lal,
I only read Ardy's ravings when they are quoted in replies, BUT,
what is that (=20) at the end of every line of his dogma?
My Ardy filter has protected me! :-)
Jerry
"A. Lal" wrote:
> 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:
