Water burns!
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:
I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even
after the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors..

Oy! While that event certainly proved beyond any doubt that th etwo were
transferrable, some of those old books must have been waaaayy out of date.

In my High school, in the early 70's, we were taught not one thing about
anything that would make the world older than around 6000 years. Science
class was very strange.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

On Jun 16, 9:05 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
That is your opinion of Harrison's problem.

No, that is(was) Harrison's opinion of Harrison's problem. He realized
that it was impossible for his first design to work on a ship at sea.
I'm
not nearly smart enough to have figured it out.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 16, 10:07 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
What on earth was it that he was taught?

He was taught that the only energy associated with a mass is kinetic
and potential. Atomic energy was completely omitted from the principle
of conservation of energy back in those days. He was taught: "Energy
cannot be created or destroyed." I was taught: "Energy cannot be
created or destroyed *by ordinary chemical means*". See how the
principle was ammended because it was wrong to begin with?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 16, 10:20 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is
incorrect, and likes to self correct.

Aha, but the scientific logic goes like this: We have corrected all
our past mistakes and now we are corrent. When one corrects N mistakes
while an infinity of mistakes go uncorrected, one is not making much
progress.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 17, 11:47 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly
consistent with those used in engineering.

Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE
Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is
printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 17, 4:27 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
You are describing the constant advancement of science I was telling
you about.

My argument is not with you, Jim. It is with the people who assert
that scientific theories are never wrong - they just need new boundary
conditions imposed from time to time. The evolution of the
conservation of energy principle of which I am aware went like this:

1. Energy and matter are separate things and energy cannot be created
or destroyed. (1900)
2. Matter can be turned into energy by splitting the atom so energy
cannot be created or destroyed by ordinary chemical means. (1950)
3. Let's redefine matter as a form of energy - therefore energy cannot
be created or destroyed. (2000)

The theory was never wrong. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil, that was clearly not your point until claiming so was the only
way to save yourself. You're making it up as you go along and I'm
tired of playing.

Although not stated in those words, if you will read back you will
find that I engaged in a little Primrose Pathing. If we set our
present space-time as the reference, it will have changed by tomorrow.
By requiring a reference that doesn't exist in reality, we are hardly
any closer to the truth than our ancestors who thought the earth was
flat and was the center of the universe. Scientists are putting their
faith in references that continually change. Don't they realize that
their references are just as prone to relativity effects as the
universe in which those references exist? A relatively simply
mathematical transformation will put the earth back at the center of
the universe.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 17, 4:41 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:31:03 -0500, Cecil Moore
This is similar to the problem that John Harrison faced
when he tried to design a clock for ocean travel. The
frame of reference was continuously changing so he had
to give up on his original design.

Huh? I recall the story quite differently. He had to give up on his
original design because it wasn't immune to the gyroscopic effect
resulting from rotation of the earth and pitching of the ship.

i.e. a changing (physical) frame of reference.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:1182121084.278523.139290
@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On Jun 16, 10:20 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is
incorrect, and likes to self correct.

Aha, but the scientific logic goes like this: We have corrected all
our past mistakes and now we are corrent. When one corrects N mistakes
while an infinity of mistakes go uncorrected, one is not making much
progress.


I don't know anyone who makes that logic. It seems like you are
dragging out a strawman here. I think that an awful lot of what we know is
correct, and a pretty good chunk of what we think we know is incomplete.
There is another grouping of things that we think we know that are wrong.
It is almost certainly shrinking though.

Might it just be simpler to say that you don't care for those who believe
that we've discovered it all?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
"Jimmie D" wrote in
:
I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even
after the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors..

Oy! While that event certainly proved beyond any doubt that th etwo were
transferrable, some of those old books must have been waaaayy out of date.

In my High school, in the early 70's, we were taught not one thing about
anything that would make the world older than around 6000 years. Science
class was very strange.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Actually E=MC2 was explaned fairly well in the text books, just not covered
in class. My teacher had a problem with the earth being older than 6000
years too but it was a subject avoided. He would neither confirm nor deny
his position in class though several students went to the same church he
did.

Jimmie