Re: In search of the perfect Disassembler

Beth wrote:
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>> Beth wrote:
>
>>> ...but you couldn't knock me over with it, as it doesn't
>>> have mass, so doesn't exert "force"
>>
>> Sorry, but no.  Photons have no rest mass, but they do have
>> mass, because they have energy.  The full Einstein equation
>> is:
>>
>> E**2 = p**2 + m**2
>>
>> in units where c == 1, where p is momentum and m is rest
>> mass and E is energy.  So even when m = 0, there is still
>> momentum and kinetic energy.  Since F = dp/dt, when a photon
>> bounces off something its momentum changes and thus it
>> exerts a force.
>>
>> Note that if photons had no mass, their trajectories could
>> not be bent by gravity, and gravitational lenses would not
>> work, among other things.
>
> Yeah, yeah...very "pedantic"...okay, they have "no rest mass"
> but do have mass because they have energy...
>
> This is a minor "nit-pick" on a minor part of what I said

That light has mass is not a pedantic minor nit-pick, it is a
fundamental result of relativity.

> ...the basic point I was making was, though, that if you're
> intending to knock someone over (as I made an example with),
> then a "photon" is not exactly the "weapon of choice"...

However, in making that basic point, you made an egregiously
false statement.  Actually two: that photons have no mass and
that they exert no force.  Those false statements are false
regardless of the context.

> As even if not "no mass" then it's choosing something so very
> close to that which has no mass

Electrons have a rest mass, but it isn't much, so let's call them
massless, too.  Protons and neutrons are lots more massive than
electrons, but they still have hardly any mass, so let's call
them massless.  And since atoms are made of the now massless
electrons, protons, and neutrons, they have no mass, either.
Therefore, nothing has mass, including the Klingon you're
shooting at, so it won't take much force at all to knock him over.

>>> "F = ma"; If "m" (mass) is zero, then "F" (force) is zero,
>>> no matter how much "oomph" (a) you put into it...
>>
>> F = ma can only be used classically, and even then only in a
>>  restricted problem domain.
>
> True, true; It's a Newtonian equation...
>
> BUT, as I was doing, you can often treat these things in a
> Newtonian fashion when the "relativistic" elements really
> don't make any great difference

When talking about the mass of the photon, especially when you
are talking about the existence or non-existence of that mass,
you must use relativity.  There is no other way to get the right
answer.

> Note: NASA used _Newton_, not Einstein, to plot the courses of
> the Apollo missions and sending the "probes" out to the outer
> planets...as the speeds involved were not "relativistic"...and
> the "classic" Newtonian view and the "relativistic"
> Einsteinian view don't significantly differ at
> "non-relativistic speeds", that you can use Newton, no
> problems, to plot such courses and they'll remain very
> accurate...because "relativity" only really starts to alter
> things when the speeds are very high (approaching
> "lightspeed")...

It is possible to talk about radiation pressure classically (to
relate that pressure to photons requires relativity), but you
were not discussing radiation pressure classically, you were
denying its existence, which is wrong classically and
relativistically.

> Okay, okay...a photon _IS_ going at "relativistic speeds" that
> you were right to pick up on the "no mass" and correct it as
> "next to no mass"...BUT, this doesn't greatly effect the basic
> underlying point...

I did not address your "basic underlying point".  I addressed the
flawed premise you based your conclusion on.  If you conclusion
was right (a question on which I express no opinion), it was by
accident.

>>> "Star Wars Episode IV" (which is just , anyway)
>>
>> Huh?  It's based on space operas, on westerns, on Kurasawa
>> movies (the 2 robots are from "The Hidden Fortress"), but I
>> see no resemblance to the Arthurian stories.
>
> Then you're not looking hard enough...

Quite possibly.

> There's a few "clues" in the names:
>
> "Lancelot" -> "Lan-selot" -> "Han Solot" -> "Han Solo" "Queen
> Morgana Le Fay" -> "Princess Le Fay Morganna" -> "Princess
> Leia Organna"

These seem far-fetched.  Are these from Lucas?

Also, these are just names.  It requires more than just a few
names to make Star Wars "Arthurian legend in disguise".

> Lucas appeared to resist calling Luke something "Arthur"-based
> or that would be a little "too obvious"...although,
> remembering Arthur was Celtic in origin, "Luke" is very much
> like "Llug" in pronounciation from Celtic legends (who was a
> character, by the way, yes, _LOST HIS HAND_ in one of the
> legends...what does Luke do later on? Yeah, exactly :)...also,
> "Luke" is basically Lucas' own surname without the "-as" at
> the end, so it could just be naming him after himself...it
> might be that, as well...but the "Llug" connection - with
> losing the hand and everything - seems to fit...

But Llug was not in the Arthur stories, was he?  And Luke did not
lose his hand in Ep4.

> Then *ahem* they are Jedi _KNIGHTS_...doesn't having "knights"
> in a sci-fi story sound at all "medieval" to you?

1) 'Medieval' is not a synonym for 'Arthurian'.
2) 'Knight' is not necessarily medieval.  There are knights
today.  'Knight' is also the usual English translation for the
class of Romans just below senatorial rank.
3)  The Jedi always seemed very Japanese to me; more like samurai
than European knights.

> And then the old wise man - dressed in "druid robes" - hands
> the young Luke his rightful "Excalibur" lightsabre...an
> "inheritance" from his father,

But Arthur didn't get his sword from Merlin.  He got it from a
"strange wom[a]n lying in [a] pond[]" in "some farcical aquatic
ceremony."

And I don't recall that there was anything special about Luke's
weapon.

> "the chosen one" (much like the title of "king" is inherited
> by the son)...then offers him very Merlin-esque "wisdoms" and
> "tutors" the young Luke / Arthur...

There is nothing particularly Arthurian about that.

> Also, though Lucas altered the "plot" after Episode IV and
> "dropped" the actually incestuous "suggestion" of something
> going on between Luke and Leia, then you had, in that episode
> (but it was "changed" later and vanished: Leia became firmly
> "Morgana Le Fay", Arthur's half-sister, rather than
> "Guinevere", Arthur's Love) at least, a suggested "Love
> triangle" between Luke, Leia and Han Solo, as the Arthur,
> Guinevere and Lancelot "Love triangle" in the medieval
> Arthurian romances...this is also reason to see "Han Solo" as
> a distorted "Lancelot")...

1) At least in Ep4 there is not much going on among those three
other than a little flirting.
2) Love triangles are not specifically Arthurian.
3) The love triangle in the Arthurian stories is important for
G's betrayal of A, which leads ultimately to Arthur's
destruction.  There is nothing remotely like that in Ep4.

> :)...the story is _KNOWN_ - Lucas has openly stated it - to
> based on the "theories" set out in the book "A Hero of a
> Thousand Faces",

Interesting, but again not specifically Arthurian.  Indeed, that
book mentions Arthur only once, in connection with the Questing
Beast (according to the index; the Arthurian cycle is mentioned
in 2 footnotes).  I don't see anything in Ep4 remotely resembling
the QB, or the grail, for that matter.

> Though the two robots are from "Hidden Fortress", as Lucas has
> admitted such...BUT, then where did the two robots in "Hidden
> Fortress" come from?

1) In HF the clowns were human, not robots.
2) No one ever claimed that Kurosawa invented the clown.
3) HF was the immediate inspiration for the robots, as you admit.
4) The robots have nothing to do with the Arthurian cycle, at
least as far as I can see.

> Knock, knock / Who's there? / Doctor / Doctor Who? /

But Who's on first.  (Finally, something sensible to say.)

> Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll automatically refuse this
> completely

It's not automatic; I just don't think you have made a very good
case for Ep4 being the "Arthurian legend in disguise".  You have
cited some very dubious similarities in two names, plus some
elements that are common to many stories, plus some things that
were not in Ep4.  But nothing specifically Arthurian.

> Yes, your deformed hunchbacked Highness, women are "inherently
>  evil"...whatever you say

Where in the world did that come from?  I'm supposed to be a
misogynist because I point out that you made an egregious error
in basic physics?  Are you saying that your errors should not be
pointed out because you are a woman?

As for evil, I never thought that, or implied it.  I do, however,
begin to question your mental stability.  Perhaps you and Betov
could go into group therapy together; you both have the same
basic persecution complex.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@xxxxxx -- AB2SB


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the " ACTUAL " length ?
    ... rods in the calorimeter and the center of mass of the collision (and ... particle distribution) have relative motion. ... of a system was when he generated his theory of relativity. ... you compare the length of a rod against markings of a ruler in two ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... >> relationship between the effective masses due to forces and inertial mass. ... Noether's theorem is _specifically_ a theorem based on invariance. ... >I agree that in certain directions relativity is more restrictive. ... mechanical interpretation of identical particles is blatantly incompatible ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... > must make identical predictions. ... > let them assert that LET and special relativity must be identical ... >>> mass, weak mass and strong mass, much less defining it all as inertial ... to the universality of the ether in GLET. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THE GENERAL RELATIVITY.
    ... At the page 68 of his book Relativity Einstein writes about the General ... conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. ... THE INERTIAL AND GRAVITATIONAL MASS ... If now gravitation is the cause of the acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
    ... Potential energy in Einstein's 1905 Relativity ... mass concept. ... In his work about _Gravitation and Light_, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)