Who wants to learn a new conservation law?

  • 66 Replies
  • 17766 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« on: 11/11/2010 05:00:04 »

If we have some mass in a closed box, it is not possible to the inertia of the box to change, also the weight of the box can not change. In other words inertial mass and gravitational mass are conserved. In other words mass is conserved.


(this "closed box" here is a "closed system", so it's much more closed than for example a closed safe )


Now that we know that mass is conserved, we know that mass does not change into energy, and energy does not
change into mass. We know that people who talk about mass changing into energy are confused, or uneducated, or they just haven't thought about it enough.



*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2010 05:17:17 »
Now that we know that mass is conserved. . .

But mass isn't conserved, which is precisely what's being stated when it's said that matter and energy can be changed into one another.  Energy is what is actually conserved.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2010 05:22:10 by JP »

*

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 195
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #2 on: 11/11/2010 06:22:22 »
A new conservation law hmm? Well how about the Law of Conservation of Information. Sounds all scifi and cool at least...I'll let you know if I figure it out ;)
Take it with a grain or two of salt...

*

Offline pranza

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #3 on: 11/11/2010 06:53:05 »
Energy can only be changed into another state of energy. It can not be created or destroyed.
 [???]

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #4 on: 11/11/2010 09:56:06 »

But mass isn't conserved, which is precisely what's being stated when it's said that matter and energy can be changed into one another.  Energy is what is actually conserved.


JP, here's an example:

"An object that has a large mass is heavy to lift and difficult to stop when it's moving"

In this sentence the word mass is used correctly. It's correct English and correct physics.

Here's another sentence:

"Mass is conserved"

In this sentence the word mass has the same meaning as in the sentence number 1. 

Oh yes and mass is conserved. The mass that I have been explaining here.

Also it's worth mentioning this same mass obeys this equation: E=mc2

(I'm not necessarily absolutely denying other "masses")


*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #5 on: 11/11/2010 12:36:24 »
Quote from: jartza
If we have some mass in a closed box, it is not possible to the inertia of the box to change, also the weight of the box can not change. In other words inertial mass and gravitational mass are conserved. In other words mass is conserved.
If the mass in your box happened to be the lump of uranopilite I picked up in Cornwall some years ago, would that not change the situation?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #6 on: 11/11/2010 18:00:51 »
If the mass in your box happened to be the lump of uranopilite I picked up in Cornwall some years ago, would that not change the situation?

You asked the right question. No there is no change of mass in a closed box with a lump of radioactive material in it.

Here's one small exercise question:
In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water. Tell me something about how mass changes place in this box.



*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #7 on: 12/11/2010 05:17:12 »
Ah... the problem might be in wording.  Conservation of some "stuff" means that if you add up all the stuff before a physical process, and then add it all up after the physical process, you get the same number.  What you're getting at here is that if you fill a box with energy and seal it up, the box acts as if it has mass. 

For example, if you have a closed box and fill it with radioactive matter such that no energy can escape from the box, then you can't tell whether it's mass is due to the energy or mass of the radioactive matter. 

If you peek inside the box, still without letting any energy leak out, then you can see that the mass of the radioactive material has changed into energy, although the apparent mass of the box itself as viewed from the outside remains the same.  Since mass can be "created" in a sense from energy, and since energy seems to be more fundamental to physical processes, this is usually called conservation of energy, not mass.

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #8 on: 12/11/2010 14:28:28 »
Ah... the problem might be in wording.


Physics says silly things sometimes.

Let's put a small lump of radioactive material into a large box, the lump is put at the middle of the box. Then we put the box at a frictionless surface, and we make the box spin. As we know, the spinning will slow down because of what happens in the box.

Now what words do we use to describe what happens in the box, so that slowing down will be well understood?

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #9 on: 12/11/2010 18:07:57 »

Physics says silly things sometimes.

Let's put a small lump of radioactive material into a large box, the lump is put at the middle of the box. Then we put the box at a frictionless surface, and we make the box spin. As we know, the spinning will slow down because of what happens in the box.
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.

Anyway you are right in pointing out the pitfalls in using the phrase "mass converted into energy". This phrase is reiterated from almost everyone but it's misleading, unless it's specified "mass of what" and "energy of what"; actually energy can shift from a kind, or a location, to another, but there is no conversion at all...
« Last Edit: 12/11/2010 18:19:24 by lightarrow »

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #10 on: 12/11/2010 18:23:23 »
Here's one small exercise question:
In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water. Tell me something about how mass changes place in this box.
Do you mean the fact that the lump's mass decreases while the water's mass increases?

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #11 on: 12/11/2010 18:52:29 »
Quote from: lightarrow
the water's mass increases

Where did the water come from?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #12 on: 12/11/2010 19:56:32 »
This is beginning to sound a lot more like a new theory than an actual question.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #13 on: 12/11/2010 20:20:05 »
Quote from: lightarrow
the water's mass increases

Where did the water come from?
<<In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water>>.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #14 on: 12/11/2010 20:27:45 »
 Oops. Forgot the bucket of water. [:I]

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #15 on: 13/11/2010 01:03:04 »
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.

In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".   

Quote

Anyway you are right in pointing out the pitfalls in using the phrase "mass converted into energy". This phrase is reiterated from almost everyone but it's misleading, unless it's specified "mass of what" and "energy of what"; actually energy can shift from a kind, or a location, to another, but there is no conversion at all...

It's a big sink hole to say that mass is not conserved. It spoils our moment of inertia formula.   

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #16 on: 13/11/2010 01:19:44 »
Do you mean the fact that the lump's mass decreases while the water's mass increases?

Yes I do mean that.
There are two recoils too. One when something starts to move, another when aforementioned motion stops. This "something" is energy.

But saying "there's a recoil when mass starts to move" is actually better way to say it, isn't it?



*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #17 on: 13/11/2010 15:10:39 »
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.

In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".
And? I don't grasp the problem.  

*

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4586
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #18 on: 13/11/2010 15:14:04 »
Yes I do mean that.
There are two recoils too. One when something starts to move, another when aforementioned motion stops. This "something" is energy.

But saying "there's a recoil when mass starts to move" is actually better way to say it, isn't it?
I don't say that, because there is recoil even when you shoot a laser beam, or energy, in general, as you wrote. What is that you really want to say?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #19 on: 13/11/2010 22:14:45 »
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.

In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".
And? I don't grasp the problem.  

Do you grasp the benefit? There is a formula for moment of inertia of a homogeneous cube.
The cube may be a matter cube. Or it may be an energy cube. When mass is evenly spread in the cube the formula works.


*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #20 on: 13/11/2010 23:20:50 »
What is that you really want to say?

Do you grasp the law of conservation of mass?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #21 on: 14/11/2010 04:30:46 »
Maybe it would be polite to pay some attention to the misguided point of views too.

These are JP's views:
Energy is more fundamental than mass, energy does not have mass, energy kind of "creates" mass, mass turns into energy.


Well, I have heard that mass and energy are equivalent.


This is from lightarrow:
It is not OK to say mass turns into energy, it is OK to say mass of a potato turns into energy.


Well, sounds to me the same thing is said, the last one is just more specific.


*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #22 on: 14/11/2010 06:55:53 »
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #23 on: 14/11/2010 10:29:59 »
Nearby  Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #24 on: 14/11/2010 11:08:41 »
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...

Are you going to elaborate on mass-energy relationship?
That's what I expected next in this discussion.


*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #25 on: 14/11/2010 11:15:36 »
Nearby  Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?

No, Sirius B doesn't have any clue that there is a photon approaching. This is according to the "information can't travel faster than c" -thing. 

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #26 on: 14/11/2010 14:19:02 »
I wasn't asking about speed. Sirius B increases frequency of wave of an approaching photon.Does it increase energy of the photon? If yes, then where does the energy come from?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #27 on: 14/11/2010 19:42:48 »
I wasn't asking about speed. Sirius B increases frequency of wave of an approaching photon.Does it increase energy of the photon? If yes, then where does the energy come from?

Does the energy come from Sirius B?

No.


*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #28 on: 15/11/2010 00:27:53 »
Nearby  Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?


Falling is a straightforward thing. No energy change happens.


*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #29 on: 15/11/2010 04:08:24 »
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...

Are you going to elaborate on mass-energy relationship?
That's what I expected next in this discussion.



I think I elaborated a bit on it already.  No offense, but I find your posts to be a bit confusing (it may be a language issue?), which is why I haven't been able to answer them better.  Do you have a specific question about mass and energy and their relationship?

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #30 on: 15/11/2010 12:27:57 »

Let's attach some radioactive material on the center part of a big flywheel.
The radioactive stuff starts heating the flywheel. No heat is lost to anywhere else.
The flywheel is frictionless. Then we make the flywheel spin. What can we say about
the spinning rate?



Let's attach a spring on the center of a flywheel disk. Then we attach another disk
into the other end of the spring. Then we press the disks together. The spring becomes
compressed. Then we tie this thing with a string. This thing we have constructed is a
flywheel. It's frictionless flywheel. Now we make the flywheel spin. At some moment
the sting breaks. What can we say about the spinning rate, when the string breaks?


*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #31 on: 15/11/2010 15:08:48 »
I think I elaborated a bit on it already.  No offense, but I find your posts to be a bit confusing (it may be a language issue?), which is why I haven't been able to answer them better.  Do you have a specific question about mass and energy and their relationship?


No I don't really have a question.
Would this be a tricky question for you:
Is the mass of relativistic gas the sum of rest masses of the particles?
Relativistic gas means very hot gas.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #32 on: 16/11/2010 03:34:43 »
Generally, the answer would be no.  It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #33 on: 16/11/2010 08:13:06 »
Generally, the answer would be no.  It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.

So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.

If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.

My mass is 7 kg. Scientists have found out that mass of typical adult human being is about 7 kg. This  is still new and uncertain stuff. And silly laypeople think they know their mass, and with good accuracy.  [;D]





*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #34 on: 16/11/2010 09:03:22 »
Generally, the answer would be no.  It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.

So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.
That's not what I said at all!.  You're describing one term, but the other term is from their kinetic energies, since this also contributes to the inertial mass of the box.  Using terms like "real mass" is confusing, since various ways of accounting for mass have very specific meanings, and they're all real.

Quote
If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.
It depends how you count mass.  The inertial mass of the box, which is what most people would use to describe the mass of a box, stays the same.  For example, atoms have more mass than you would get by just summing the rest masses of all their fundamental particles.  This is because the energies associated with binding all these particles together also add to the inertial and gravitational mass of the atom. 

I think you're describing the science of this correctly, but you're trying to claim that this science means there's some sort of new conservation law or some kind of "real" mass, which is incorrect.

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #35 on: 16/11/2010 09:55:05 »
I think you're describing the science of this correctly, but you're trying to claim that this science means there's some sort of new conservation law or some kind of "real" mass, which is incorrect.

The conservation of apparent mass is the thing that I mean. It's in Wikipedia. It's called conservation of mass there.


So when a flywheel is heated uniformly it's apparent moment of inertia increases an amount that is proportional to the apparent mass increase.




*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #36 on: 16/11/2010 09:58:37 »
So what's new about the conservation law?  I agree that it exists, but it's well-known.

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #37 on: 16/11/2010 10:14:23 »
It's not well known. It's new for you guys.
It might even be new. I don't know when it appeared into Wikipedia.
Should I have mentioned Wikipedia straight away?

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #38 on: 16/11/2010 10:30:38 »
It's not well known. It's new for you guys.
It might even be new. I don't know when it appeared into Wikipedia.
Should I have mentioned Wikipedia straight away?

How can I argue with you telling us what we know and don't know?  Anyway, I think the question is resolved.

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #39 on: 19/11/2010 16:01:14 »
Nearby  Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?


Falling is a straightforward thing. No energy change happens.


Plasma inhabitants of Sirius B see increased frequency of photons from Sirius A. Frequency of these photons is increased in 1,00023 times.However they don't see increasing of energy of the photons.Then you should change the formula of photon energy.
                        [:P]

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #40 on: 19/11/2010 16:04:00 »
Generally, the answer would be no.  It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.

So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.

If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.

My mass is 7 kg. Scientists have found out that mass of typical adult human being is about 7 kg. This  is still new and uncertain stuff. And silly laypeople think they know their mass, and with good accuracy.  [;D]





Then you should change "G" [:)]

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #41 on: 19/11/2010 17:29:09 »
Plasma inhabitants of Sirius B see increased frequency of photons from Sirius A. Frequency of these photons is increased in 1,00023 times.However they don't see increasing of energy of the photons.Then you should change the formula of photon energy.
                        [:P]


These plasma people fell into Sirius B, their energy or frequency did not
change when they where falling. When they crashed into the surface of the
star their energy and frequency decreased, and the energy and frequency of
the surface increased.

Now same story with photons:

When photons fall towards Sirius B their energy or frequency does not change.
When photons crash into the plasma beings, photon's energy and frequency decrease
to zero, and the energy and frequency of the plasma folks increases.



« Last Edit: 19/11/2010 17:43:00 by jartza »

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #42 on: 19/11/2010 20:01:32 »
Then you should disprove this formula:
                    v = v_0 /√[1-2GM/Rc˛]
v-frequency        [::)]

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #43 on: 19/11/2010 20:59:50 »
Then you should disprove this formula:
                    v = v_0 /√[1-2GM/Rc˛]
v-frequency        [::)]


When a photon whose frequency has not changed hits an observer whose frequency
has decreased, the observer says the frequency of the photon has increased.


Increase of frequency of a photon is a very silly idea.
Are new crests and troughs created? Well that's silly.
Does photon contract while holes between photons are created? That's silly too.

[Combined two posts & removed loads of unnecessary whitespace - Mod]
« Last Edit: 20/11/2010 11:05:00 by peppercorn »

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #44 on: 02/12/2010 07:12:00 »
So where's the gratefulness? I'm trying to help you guys. [:)]


Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.


Now read that sentence five times, slowly. Then answer the question "are mass and energy equivalent"


*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #45 on: 02/12/2010 11:22:13 »
[:D]  Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #46 on: 02/12/2010 15:03:08 »
I think Simplified is right in his description, The photon traveling toward Sirius are falling into a 'gravity well'. As seen from the 'frame' of A Sirian :) that photon indeed have increased its momentum and frequency becoming blue shifted as it according to the Sirian 'gains' energy through the 'gravity' bending the light.. The opposite happens to a photon climbing out from a gravity well where it instead becomes 'red shifted' as it 'expends energy'.

But that's all about frames of reference. You can also see it as the photon consists of some sort of 'Energy-quanta', and looked at this way the photon starts with, let's say three Eq (ahem:) and when free from the 'gravitational disturbance' it will be found to still have those three Eq, no matter if you measure it after 'climbing out' or 'falling in'.

What the observer sees is a relation connected to his 'frame of reference' and invalid in another 'frame of reference, for example the photon coasting next to our original photon 'at rest' with him will swear, if you asked him, that his pal never changed 'energy' or 'frequency'. As I see it :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #47 on: 02/12/2010 15:53:27 »
Quite right, yor_on, particularly the part where photon's pal saw no change in the other photon was good.

BUT  ... there is a law of conservation of frequency.



[attachment=13505]


Here we see two identical planets falling towards each other. While this falling is happening the frequency of the whole system stays F. And because of symmetry F1 stays the same as F2.

(F1 means frequency of schrodingen wave of planet F1)


 

« Last Edit: 03/12/2010 00:23:40 by jartza »

*

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #48 on: 03/12/2010 03:21:56 »
[:D]  Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]


You are nasty.


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8748
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #49 on: 03/12/2010 08:34:05 »
[:D]  Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]


You are nasty.




I think that clear ad hom attack shows that this thread is going nowhere.
Please disregard all previous signatures.