alpine_saint

We had 10 good years then ?

Wow, Lowe is making such a f**king pig's ear of things now, he is even starting to lose the support of his die-hard luvvies. Another quickie, cheap decision that will do NOTHING to resolve the crisis of relegation (and administration) the club is facing. He doesnt get this football thing at all. HE HAS TO GO. He hung his coat on this strategy, and its FAILED.

Wow, if Wotte is half-hearted abou the job he should f**k off right now..

Well, you are strangely persistent considering this is just an issue of mild curiosity for you...

I, too am wondering about the ulterior motive behind this thread...

Why is anybody still in any sort of doubt that the Trust will do anything ? 1. Its a f**king cliquey club only interested in getting cheap burgers and beer 2. Illlingsworth, the Chairman, is a f**king Luvvie, FFS.

Redknapp didnt send us down. Lowe did that.

I think we are a lot more untied than at any time this season, but think we were more untied just before going into the Blades game at the end of last season. Before that, probably the last time we were so united was the utterly misplaced optimism about a quick return to the PL at the beginning of the 2005/2006 season.

LOL at my own stupid misplaced optimism.....

christ, I'm bored...

rest energy -> 0 as you approach c.

E = mc(2) is only correct as an object approaches the speed of light, which isnt feasbile. The general rule for all velocities is 0.5mv(2) From Wikipedia : If a force is applied to an object in the direction of motion, the object gains momentum. It also gains energy because the force is doing work. But an object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value – the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity, nor is the kinetic energy given by ½mv2. (The latter is just a very good low-velocity approximation.) The relativistic mass is defined as the ratio of the momentum of an object to its velocity, and it depends on the motion of the object relative to the observer. If the object is moving slowly, the relativistic mass is nearly equal to the rest mass and both are equal to the usual Newtonian mass. If the object is moving quickly, the relativistic mass is greater than the rest mass. As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass tends towards infinity. When a force acts in the direction of motion, the relativistic mass goes up and the momentum goes up, but the speed hardly increases. The relativistic mass is always equal to the total energy divided by c2 shown as: m = E/c2 The difference between the relativistic mass and the rest mass is the relativistic kinetic energy (divided by c2). Because the relativistic mass is exactly proportional to the energy, relativistic mass and relativistic energy are nearly synonyms; the only difference between them is the units. If length and time are measured in natural units, the speed of light is equal to 1, and even this difference disappears. Then mass and energy have the same units and are always equal, so it is redundant to speak about relativistic mass, because it is just another name for the energy. For this reason, in relativity people almost always reserve the useful short word "mass" to mean the rest mass. The rest mass of an object is the relativistic mass as measured when moving along with the object. By definition, rest mass is the same in all inertial frames. For a system of particles going off in different directions, the invariant mass is the analog of the rest mass, and it is defined as the total energy (divided by c2) in the center of mass frame. For a system made up of many parts, linked in (nucleus, atom, planet, star, …), the relativistic mass is the sum of the relativistic masses of the parts, because the energy adds up.

You are talking about kinetic energy which is 0.5mv(2). that is completely different.

e = energy m = mass c = speed of light It means that as you approach the speed of light, the energy you have gains mass by a square function, meaning more and more energy at colossal rates is required to continue accelerating. If something was moving at the speed of light, it would have infinite mass. It's the reason the speed of light is unattainable, under the conventional phsyical laws of the universe.

Indeed. My first thought was that this was more bolllocks.... My second thought was I could imagine Lowe saying that.......

Didnt Lowe dispense with their services ?

FFS.............. Is there any doubt left about the sort of man we are dealing with ?

Clearly finsihed with her own particular brand of PR...

Depends if you see it as simply appointing a manager, or part of hanging your coat on an entire long-term strategy for the club. I reckon JP was integral to the long-term strategy, which means if he is fired the whole thing is in the bin. CEOs do tend to carry the can for f**ked-up long-term strategy, because the effects and recovery from it are wide-ranging, painful, massively expensive and time consuming, and LONG-TERM.

Fair enough. My compliements to the admin team. Didnt appreciate the low blow from you though........

:smt108 Ridiculous. No-one is committing libel, and no-one is planning anything illegal. I dont understand this. This is about saving the club, FFS. I thought this site was run by Saints fans for Saints fans...... Scotty, I cant be there, but happy to help keep bumping it for you.

Why is it pointless ?

It appears neither is going to happen.

Sorry, but Lowe sees them as one-and-the-same.

Have to say, I agree with this. Lowe as sole owner would simply make matters worse on the attendance and revenue side.