Re: nuclei role in thermodynamics/energy transport?

From: Tom Potter (tdp_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:22:04 +0800

"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412220734530.32063-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
>
> > "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412190945360.8346-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> > >
> > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412181057100.2994-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
> > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> > > > >
> > > > > The energy in your two lines are different things.
> > > > > The first line is the relation between a change in potential
energy
> > and
> > > > > charge's movement through a voltage difference
> > > > > The second relation, commonly, would be read as the relationship
> > between
> > > > > rest mass and rest energy has little to do with the first
relation.
> > There
> > > > > is some ambiguity if you mean rest mass or "relativistic mass".
In
> > > > > particle physics, we pretty much only talk about rest mass.
> > > > > In any case, there is no obvious connection between the two.
Indeed,
> > a
> > > > > direct relationship between charge and mass would be a bit
difficult
> > to
> > > > > explain given the distribution of masses between the three
generations
> > of
> > > > > quarks and leptons.
> > > >
> > > > It is interesting to see that "Creighton Hogg"
> > > > seems to think that charge has nothing to do with mass,
> > > > and mass has nothing to do with charge.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that he do a Google search on "mass spectrometers",
> > > > and see if this is the case.
> > >
> > > A mass spectrometer separates out isotopes according to their charge
to
> > > mass ratios. Essentially it is a measure of the ratios between
protons
> > > and neutrons.
> > > That does not imply a *causal connection* between having charge and
having
> > > mass in the way you implied with
> > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> > > Combining these relationships (the first one is technically wrong
because
> > > it is a change in voltage that matters) does not work for the reasons
I
> > > explained above! You are equivocating on the uses of "energy".
> > > The three generations of quarks and leptons have different masses but
the
> > > same charge.
> >
> > My initial post in this thread was motivated by Uncle Al's comment::
> > "What does mass have to do with charge, git?
> > Bull*** meter quivers in its packing case."
> >
> > You defended Uncle Al by posting:
> > > In any case, there is no obvious connection between the two. Indeed,
a
> > > direct relationship between charge and mass would be a bit difficult
to
> > > explain given the distribution of masses between the three generations
of
> > > quarks and leptons.
> >
> > Mass spectrometry show that
> > charge DOES have something to do with mass,
> > and Uncle Al's comment was uncalled for,
> > as was your defense of the comment.
>
> No, that's not the issue here at all. I didn't care what Uncle Al said, I
> was responding to this:
> > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> which does not imply a relationship between mass and charge for the
> reasons I, and Franz, have enumerated before. You've never addressed the
> fact that the "energy" in these two lines are two different things.
> You made an error, and we have been trying to explain what it is.

Forgive me for misintrepreting your motive in supporting Uncle Al.

Considering a couple of your posts, which are excerpted below,
I think you can see how I could misintepret your motive,
for jumping into the thread and nitpicking.

==================
On Wed 15 Dec 2004, Creighton Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Mark Fergerson wrote:

> Maleki wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:23:25 +0800, Tom Potter wrote:

> >> Unfortunately,
> >> Bush did attack the Iraqi people,

> Potter takes extremist American Liberal rhetoric as
> Revealed Truth. The major involvement of the Iraqi people is
> trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Oh no, I think it's much more than that. I've seen extremist rhetoric
from all denominations of politics, and I've never seen anything quite
like Potter.
Perhaps you are lumping him in with your least favorite group? ;)
===========
Creighton Hogg wrote:

How many cranks on here have been spouting
the same nonsense for *years* without ever accepting
correction? H.E. Retic has been almost ten I think. Jai Maharaj almost
ten as well. Y. Porat for about three years. Not sure about Seto,
Hammond, or Charles Cagle, but I know it's been a long time.
=============

I am pleased to see that your motives are pure,
and are not predicated on emotions and prejudices,
and I look forward to interacting with you
in threads where the focus is on physics,
rather than politics, ego-tripping, and personal attacks. 

--
Tom Potter     http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp