Re: POLL: Would you use Ada more if...

[Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Anatoly Chernyshev wrote:

> Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3D6BD1A8.9060801@worldnet.att.net>...
> 
>>This analysis relies upon a misunderstanding of the formula E=mc**2.
>>Not all energy transmission results in the formation or destruction
>>of matter. This only happens during fusion or fission.
>>
>>If this were not so, your calculations would still be incomplete.
>>You ignore state transition energies, friction, differences in
>>gravitational forces, and perturbations of nearby electric and magnetic
>>fields. These other forces result in additional energy consumption
>>resulting in a local increase in heat.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, you suggested a whole theme for research, which, I believe, will
> win the Nobel prize upon completion. Thanks a
> lot, but... tough luck.
> Anyway, as I said, it was only crude ESTIMATION made in 10 min, not
> analysis or whatever else.
> 
> What did you mean by the destruction of matter? Decomposition into
> photons? But they are also a kind of matter, and
> one can compute their mass from
> de Broigle wavelength: lambda=h/mc.
> 

What particle is created or converted to produce kinetic energy?
Particle theory also includes the concept of momentum for each individual
particle. The ideal gas law describes this very clearly: pv=nRt.
Kinetic energy is responsible for the temperature (t) in the above
equation. Note that classical mechanics defines energy as
E=(mv**2)/2. The first indication that the Einsteinian formal was true
came with nuclear fission results in the 1940's. Prior to that the
classical formula was dominant for particle physics. How can this be?
Were all old calculations off by a factor of 2? No, the classical
formula was quite reliable. The Einsteinian formula is only seen to be
valid under conditions not normally encountered on the surface of Earth
such a fission and fusion reactions.

Jim Rogers