"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message =

Androcles wrote:

"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message =

|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message =

| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in =

| > | > |
| > | > |

| > | > | > infinities. That is because how they are treated changes =

| > | > | > the context, and often changes even within the same =

| > | > |
| > | > | "Infinities" is an oxymoron, when dealing with the same =

| > | > | entities. There is only ONE infinity for distance, one for =

| > | > | for mass, one for energy.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Huh?
| > | > What are the units of energy?
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | There are infinite cubic meters of space in the universe; each =

| > | meter contains x joules or whatever
| > | -------->> infinite amount of energy in the universe.
| >
| > Never mind the "whatever", what are joules in the MKS or SI =

|
| Sorry, can't see the point of going in this direction.

What did you raise it for then? You spout some nonsense about one =

for energy, one for, time, one for mass and then when I ask you =

you can't see any point in discussing it. Obviously you are =

| Of course you
| realise that the energy/volume referred to is an average,

No, I do not "realise" anything of the kind.
The dictionary defines "joule" as a unit of work or energy equal to =

NIST says
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB9.html
ENERGY (includes WORK)
To convert from to Multiply by

=

British thermal unitIT (BtuIT) 11 joule (J) 1.055 056 =

British thermal unitth (Btuth ) 11 joule (J) 1.054 350 E+03
British thermal unit (mean) (Btu) joule (J) 1.055 87 E+03
British thermal unit (39 =B0F) (Btu) joule (J) 1.059 67 E+03
British thermal unit (59 =B0F) (Btu) joule (J) 1.054 80 E+03
British thermal unit (60 =B0F) (Btu) joule (J) 1.054 68 E+03
calorieIT (calIT) 11 joule (J) 4.1868 E+00
calorieth (calth) 11 joule (J) 4.184 E+00
calorie (mean) (cal) joule (J) 4.190 02 E+00
calorie (15 =B0C) (cal15) joule (J) 4.185 80 E+00
calorie (20 =B0C) (cal20) joule (J) 4.181 90 E+00
calorieIT, kilogram (nutrition) 12 joule (J) 4.1868 E+03
calorieth, kilogram (nutrition) 12 joule (J) 4.184 E+03
calorie (mean), kilogram (nutrition) 12 joule (J) 4.190 02 =

electronvolt (eV) joule (J) 1.602 177 E-19
erg (erg) joule (J) 1.0 E-07
foot poundal joule (J) 4.214 011 E-02
foot pound-force (ft =B7 lbf) joule (J) 1.355 818 E+00
kilocalorieIT (kcalIT) joule (J) 4.1868 E+03
kilocalorieth (kcalth) joule (J) 4.184 E+03
kilocalorie (mean) (kcal) joule (J) 4.190 02 E+03
kilowatt hour (kW =B7 h) joule (J) 3.6 E+06
kilowatt hour (kW =B7 h) megajoule (MJ) 3.6 E+00
quad (1015 BtuIT) 11 joule (J) 1.055 056 E+18
therm (EC) 25 joule (J) 1.055 06 E+08
therm (U.S.) 25 joule (J) 1.054 804 E+08
ton of TNT (energy equivalent) 26 joule (J) 4.184 E+09
watt hour (W =B7 h) joule (J) 3.6 E+03
watt second (W =B7 s) joule (J) 1.0 E+00


I haven't a clue what a watt second per cubic meter is, or what =

per cubic meter is. What are you babbling about?




and may
| consist of macro matter (where say the moon invades the volume) or =

| particles. Perhaps there could even be the (unlikely) event of =

| being present at a particular unit of volume. (Hmmmmmmmm! =

| we reduce the volume under observation ????)
| If gravity had a mass component, being ubiquitous, I'm in trouble =

You are very much in trouble. Don't babble, it makes you look like =

Androcles.

e=3Dmc^2 (or v^2 if you like )
Convert ALL your units of energy into mass, or vice versa. I don't =

what the answer would be, but it would be on large scales, a =

of the universe, eh? An average of matter<->energy per volume.

"There are infinite cubic meters of space in the universe; " - agreed.

"each cubic meter contains x joules or whatever." - not agreed.

There are 100 cubic meters in my kitchen. Only 0.5 cubic meters
(my refrigerator) contains food. I have no intention of vaporising
yoghurt to fill my kitchen, and I prefer my cheese in lumps.

Babble? Would you rather I learn to "talk the talk" of the other
thinkless, brainwashed around here?
Anyway, up yours! How much energy do YOU think a cubic meter of space
contains, with a strong gravity field present, and without?

Zilch. :-)
Androcles.

Try again, with my corrected "cubic meter of universe", instead of
"space"

Jim G
c'=c+v

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130611651.411975.141760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130588644.334809.55810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130583789.291224.228450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | I don't know how you know that.
| > | >
| > | > Marcel asked you "Length contraction of what?", Phuckwit Duck.
| > | > Do try to have more than a zero attention span.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | And you can look up the thread where that was explored in detail, too,
| > | Androcles. Do try to stick to the topic.
| > |
| > | PD
| > I know how to stick to the topic, Phuckwit Duck. The topic your
| > zero attention span and inability to answer Marcel's question,
| > so you move on to the different thread to show your arrogant ignorance
| > to someone else.
|
| I think I'm capable of maintaining more than one ng conversation at a
| time, Androcles. Bugger off.

***** you, rapidity-bins *****, you have no ethics, you disgusting arsehole.

Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or

drifting

to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
========================
or this?

========================
Draper:
Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.

But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step

at a

time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge

the

error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
=========================

Androcles:

I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
==========================

Then you caved in and ran away, and here you are back again, after
all the work I did, with not so much as a
"party in error MUST acknowledge the error" or a
"Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now."

Google remembers it very well.
Androcles.

Why don't you *****, at least Uncle Al and Bielawski knew when
they were beaten, you ignorant stupid useless arrogant moron.
Androcles.