Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
oh, well thank you then. I need to got to learn to utilize all the things you all know how to do on here that I don't. I think there's a Free Republic tutorial some where, right?
Nevermind, I found the tutorial under the "help" section.
ok.
this is the first time I have heard of chemical and kinetic reactions having anything to do with conversion of energy to mass and vice-versa.
That has never changed, even though medicine has raised the mean and median age limits. Once you survive infancy, plague, war, pestilence and bad genes, technology doesn't contribute much.
My father is 96. He survived a hip fracture two years ago and is still healthy. He hasn't required any high-tech medical help, other than the pin in his hip.
I once heard that the "firmament" was a layer of water above the earth that contributed to humans, animals, and plants living longer and being larger.
I don't disagree. Let me go back and check my post. I think I did qualify that was the formula for ideal exponential growth, and that the actual rate will reach some limit due to environmental conditions. I didn't mean to imply populations necessarily grow exponentially, and it is entirely possible of course for growth rates to be zero or negative.
it's a puzzlement.
there are three basic options
1. wild-assed guess, that turned out to be accurate
2. there were enough people to make it to about that age to be observable, and a general paradigm was deduced
3. "somehow, they knew"
I don't buy #1
I lack data by which to decide between #s 2 and 3
Understood. Most HS's and even a lot of college courses teach otherwise.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0003691.html
E = mc2 This conversion of mass into energy is the basis of atomic power. Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) correlates any gain, E, in energy with a gain, m, in mass, by the equation, E = mc2, in which c is the speed of light. The conversion of mass into energy in accordance with this equation applies universally, although it is only in nuclear reactions that the percentage change in mass is large enough to detect.
You might find this interesting.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/mass_and_energy.html
again, thanks. either they didn't teach this in chem 101 at Tulane in '89... or I didn't learn it ;)
I"ve always had the personal belief that, if you step outside a literal interpretation, the parable of genesis sounds very similar to the big bang theory and a brief history of time.
cute.
I loathe relativity - it makes my head hurt.
"an object in motion has more mass than it does at rest"
ok, but which object is actually in motion: the object, or its environment?
Here is a simplifies presentation of physics which shed some light.
ubi est lincum ad hoc?
ah.
hehhehheh
It's all relative. If your twin brother is coming at you at a very high speed, he will weigh more and hit you harder. OTOH, from his reference, you are the big bully heading to him at a high rate of speed.
I'm not kidding, dammit!
:)
seriously, this kinda stuff confuses me.
if an object accelerates away from Earth, to us it sure looks like it is going faster... but from the appropriate outside reference it would appear to be slowing down.
from its own reference, it would notice the acceleration, but once the thrust ceased it would appear to be motonless while the rest of creation staggers past.
this kinda stuff nuts me out.
I would wager they didn't teach it. Chemistry courses are focused on the old law of conservation of mass and that is drummed into the students heads so often even the teachers start to believe it.
That is no mass is lost in combustion because the "lost mass" went up in smoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.