But is it art?

[cheshirecat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorcycle_manufacturers/honda/7898790/Honda-Fireblade-motorcycle-or-art.html

About time too

[swbarnett]

Wether or not it's art the artist is obviously not a physicist


The display theme is 'The Conservation of Mass', with the displays highlighting the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

This is completely wrong. Matter is created and destroyed all the time. It is energy that cannot be created or destroyed.

[crazyhorse]

Interesting thing to do with a Honda :innocent:

[doc]

"But is it art "


Well more like Graffiti really. :innocent:

[grusomhat]

Wether or not it's art the artist is obviously not a physicist



This is completely wrong. Matter is created and destroyed all the time. It is energy that cannot be created or destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

[pzkpfw]

"The Fireblade is such an iconic machine worldwide, with Honda also being renowned for their innovation, so this machine and working with Honda was the only way I really wanted to go," said Bean.

I think I can guess how he got the bikes...

[one fast tl1ooo]

no thats not art..

[EJK]

It's a fukn doodle compared to MV Agusta I rekon.


Sorry Honda fans.

[imdying]

Hardly... much purer than the overly fussy (and more than a little pretentious) shapes that make up (the now tired looking) the F4. Can't believe how poor MVs efforts to tart it up again this year were.

[cheshirecat]

Hardly... much purer than the overly fussy (and more than a little pretentious) shapes that make up (the now tired looking) the F4. Can't believe how poor MVs efforts to tart it up again this year were.

The only MV that I really remember like it was yesterday was the 750 pre America, especially when it started up - sounded like the worlds most sophisticated gravel crusher and my old flared jeans being pinned back by the exhaust blast.

[crazzed]

first usefull thing ive seen a honda do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[avgas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
works fine until we consider the beginning of all mass, and anti-matter.
But essentially without these 2 exceptions mass is conserved.

[sinfull]

I went to mass once !

[NONONO]

Is it possible to "conserve" mass?
Load of Damien Hurst bollocks.

[swbarnett]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
The idea that matter (ie mass) cannot be created or destroyed is one that pre-dates relativity. Yes, in a closed system with no quantum affects, mass will be conserved. However, as a general principle it is wrong. The ammount of mass in the universe is not constant. It is energy that is conserved, not mass. This is a tenet of Albert Einstein, illustrated by the famous equation "E=MC2".

For example matter is destroyed to release the energy of a nuclear explosion. Also, when a body accelerates it's mass increases. At the speed of light it's mass becomes infinite. This is why the speed of light is an absolute limit for anythint that has mass.

The article you sited also has some factual errors. i.e:


The reason for this is that relativistic equations show that even "massless" particles such as photons still add mass and energy to closed systems, allowing mass (though not matter) to be conserved in all processes where energy does not escape the system.
A massless particle cannot add mass to the system.

[avgas]

I do enjoy a good mass debate

[Swoop]

Can't believe how poor MVs efforts to tart it up again this year were.
They are still recovering from the harley davidson ownership (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/127180-Harley-sells-MV-Agusta)...
It'll probably take them years to get all the tassles and saddlebags out of the factory.:shifty:

[aprilia_RS250]

For example matter is destroyed to release the energy of a nuclear explosion. Also, when a body accelerates it's mass increases. At the speed of light it's mass becomes infinite. This is why the speed of light is an absolute limit for anythint that has mass.

The article you sited also has some factual errors. i.e:


A massless particle cannot add mass to the system.

Remember Newton's physics are incorrect when you take into consideration that something is traveling at speed of light, that's where Einstein came in.

I think you're confusing mass with momentum here... Acceleration causes your momentum to increase, not mass. You need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light, mass doesn't change at all.

[doc]

One mans art is another mans junk.

[pzkpfw]

I think you're confusing mass with momentum here... Acceleration causes your momentum to increase, not mass. You need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light, mass doesn't change at all.

Rest mass doesn't change, but it is common in relativity to consider mass as having increased due to velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

(However, it's a little "out of fashion" to think of it this way).

[swbarnett]

Remember Newton's physics are incorrect when you take into consideration that something is traveling at speed of light, that's where Einstein came in.
Einstein does describe what happens at high speeds near the speed of light (nothing can travel at the speed of light). However, relativistic effects do occurr at low speeds but they can be discounted in most calculations. Also, quantum effects describe the destruction of matter due to radioactive decay. Anything that contains carbon will suffer from this. This is how carbon dating works (the ratio between C12 and C14).


I think you're confusing mass with momentum here... Acceleration causes your momentum to increase, not mass. You need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light, mass doesn't change at all.
No confusion. I have it on the authority of a qualified Nuclear and Particle Physicist (my wife) that mass does indeed increase as speed increases. This can be shown by E=mc2. This can be rewritten as m=E/C2. Therefore, as energy increases, so does mass.

Yes, you do need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light. This is because of the increase in mass. If you plot mass vs speed you will find that it assymptotes towards infinity the closer you get to the speed of light. This is better explained thus:

Mass-Energy Equivalence

Another prediction of Special Relativity is that:

E = m c2

Since we now know that the speed of light is just a conversion factor for units, we can "read" this equation to say that mass and energy are equivalent.

We call the mass of an object when it is at rest relative to us its rest mass. If the object is moving relative to us its mass will be greater than its rest mass.

The relation between the mass m and the speed v of an object is shown below.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Images/massenergy.gif

[vindy500]

(nothing can travel at the speed of light).

What about light?

[swbarnett]

Now for the graph instead of just a link.
216356

[swbarnett]

What about light?
Indeed, you are correct. Although photons would be more accurate as visible light is only a small part of the electro-magnetic spectrum (all of whch is photons of varying wavelengths). This is the only exception.

[aprilia_RS250]

Einstein does describe what happens at high speeds near the speed of light (nothing can travel at the speed of light). However, relativistic effects do occurr at low speeds but they can be discounted in most calculations. Also, quantum effects describe the destruction of matter due to radioactive decay. Anything that contains carbon will suffer from this. This is how carbon dating works (the ratio between C12 and C14).


No confusion. I have it on the authority of a qualified Nuclear and Particle Physicist (my wife) that mass does indeed increase as speed increases. This can be shown by E=mc2. This can be rewritten as m=E/C2. Therefore, as energy increases, so does mass.

Yes, you do need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light. This is because of the increase in mass. If you plot mass vs speed you will find that it assymptotes towards infinity the closer you get to the speed of light. This is better explained thus:

Mass-Energy Equivalence

Another prediction of Special Relativity is that:

E = m c2

Since we now know that the speed of light is just a conversion factor for units, we can "read" this equation to say that mass and energy are equivalent.

We call the mass of an object when it is at rest relative to us its rest mass. If the object is moving relative to us its mass will be greater than its rest mass.

The relation between the mass m and the speed v of an object is shown below.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Images/massenergy.gif

Yeah I remember these in my early varsity days, given what attention I did pay. But what's not commonly known is that the E=mc2 doesn't use rest mass, it uses relative mass "m(rel)".

m(rel) is momentum to velocity. ie m(rel)=m(rest)/(1-v2/c2)

Hence for whatever mass as your velocity increases such that it's at speed of light then you have m(rest)/0=infinity.

Ask your wife to check if I'm right

[Blinkwing]

One mans art is another mans junk.

That's brilliant, should do the same with my 250cc bike instead of selling it.

[gatch]

Back to the question asked..

I don't think it's art. With the big honda logo on the window. I think the man intends it to be art, but he is a cock and should stay away from functioning motorbikes.

What kind of a fuck wit takes a fully functioning bike and pulls it apart ? Why not take one with a fucked motor or that has 150,000km on it ?

And that other tosser with the 916 on his wall should be shot in the street, those things are art in motion, now it hangs motionless on his fuckin wall. I'd punch him right in the neck if I met him. Then stand on his cock for good measure.

Sorry, rant over..

[grusomhat]

Indeed, you are correct. Although photons would be more accurate as visible light is only a small part of the electro-magnetic spectrum (all of whch is photons of varying wavelengths). This is the only exception.

Thanks. I probably should have posted something rather than just posting a link, and wiki link at that. As a first year eng student everything you've posted has been very helpful.

[swbarnett]

Yeah I remember these in my early varsity days, given what attention I did pay. But what's not commonly known is that the E=mc2 doesn't use rest mass, it uses relative mass "m(rel)".

m(rel) is momentum to velocity. ie m(rel)=m(rest)/(1-v2/c2)

Hence for whatever mass as your velocity increases such that it's at speed of light then you have m(rest)/0=infinity.

Ask your wife to check if I'm right
From the discussions I've had with her around this I believe what you say is correct.

[aprilia_RS250]

From the discussions I've had with her around this I believe what you say is correct.

So if I was traveling at speed of light my rest mass would remain at 80kgs however my relative mass (i.e. momentum) would be infinity kgs/m/s?

[R-Soul]

Remember Newton's physics are incorrect when you take into consideration that something is traveling at speed of light, that's where Einstein came in.

I think you're confusing mass with momentum here... Acceleration causes your momentum to increase, not mass. You need an infinite amount of energy to move something at speed of light, mass doesn't change at all.

No, he is right. I also remember this from varsity days. As your velocity increases to tend towards the speed of light, your mass tends towards infinity.

Simplified,
F=m.a

To accelerate an infinite mass would take an infinite amount of force (and hence energy in creating that force), and hence you can never actually reach the speed of light.

Also, he is right in that energy is conserved, not mass. Matter is created and destroyed all the time in stars in nuclear reactions. A tiny amount onf matter contains a huge amount of energy locked up in it. When matter is destroyed, it releases this energy as fusion or fission nuclear reactions.

[swbarnett]

So if I was traveling at speed of light my rest mass would remain at 80kgs however my relative mass (i.e. momentum) would be infinity kgs/m/s?
Yes, your rest mass is essentially just a measure of the mass you have when you're not moving in a given inertial reference frame i.e. when you're at rest. Also correct, as per the graph I posted earlier, as you get ever closer to the speed of light your mass increases more and more for every extra kph you add.

The weird thing here is that all this is relative. If you are travelling near the speed of light at a constant velocity all the laws of physics appear to work the same. For example, you can play tennis in a smooth fast moving train with no windows and you'll think the train is standing still.


If you are travelling near the speed of light at a constant velocity you won't feel any heavier. Indeed, if you stand on a set of scales it will just read your rest mass. However, to a stationary observer (relative to you) your mass will have increased, well, massively.
After consultation with the expert I've realised that what I said earlier is not quite right. Adding gravity to an inertial reference frame ruins its' inertial nature because gravity itself is akin to an accelleration.

Another interesting thing is that the speed of light itself is constant inside the reference frame no matter how fast you are travelling. Hold a mirror in front of you and the time taken for the photons to leave your face, hit the mirror and reach your eyes remains the same. This is related to the fact that as you travel faster time actually slows down. This has been proven experimentally by synchronising two atomic clocks and sending one around the world in a jet. Even at the relatively low speeds of commercial air travel the clock that went around the world lost time relative to the one that stayed on the ground. In essence we travel backwards through time relative to the ground dwellers every time we hop on an airliner.

[gatch]

BUT IS IT ART !!!!

Nerds..

[swbarnett]

Nerds..
Yes, but at least we're BIKER nerds...


BUT IS IT ART !!!!
Well, if the purpose of art is to provoke discussion or elicit emotion the I'd have to this thread is good evidence that it is.

[gatch]

Yes, but at least we're BIKER nerds...

Touche.


Well, if the purpose of art is to provoke discussion or elicit emotion the I'd have to this thread is good evidence that it is..

Quantum physics has as much to do with art, as Hardley Davison has do do with motorcycling..