Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 4 Apr 2010 10:53 Igor wrote: > On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > > Gravitational potential energy decreases with altitude, so the > opposite would be true. No. In Newtonian physics, the gravitational potential energy of an object increases with its altitude. That sign is absolutely required so that when it falls, the sum of its kinetic and potential energies remains constant. The usual convention is to set the zero of gravitational potential at infinity, so the potential of an object near earth is negative; it decreases (becomes more negative) as it approaches the surface from above. As I already discussed, the original poster's claims were rather naive. Tom Roberts
From: Androcles on 4 Apr 2010 10:56 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:h8OdneVZ8PJHOiXW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > Igor wrote: >> On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude >> >> Gravitational potential energy decreases with altitude, so the >> opposite would be true. > > No. In Newtonian physics, the gravitational potential energy of an object > increases with its altitude. That sign is absolutely required so that when > it falls, the sum of its kinetic and potential energies remains constant. > > The usual convention is to set the zero of gravitational potential at > infinity, so the potential of an object near earth is negative; it > decreases (becomes more negative) as it approaches the surface from above. > > As I already discussed, the original poster's claims were rather naive. > > > Tom Roberts Infinity is not a number. As I already discussed, you are a babbling lunatic.
From: waldofj on 4 Apr 2010 18:17 On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > valid? > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass > > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > equivalent to an exchange of mass. > > Thank you. I have a recording of E saying mass and energy are both equivalent manifestations of the same thing. So, as per the mass-energy equivalence, all of the above is correct. While e = mc^2 has been verified by other means, in the above cases the change in mass is way to small to ever be measured. So, while the statements are technically correct, their validity has to be taken for granted.
From: mpc755 on 4 Apr 2010 19:46 On Apr 4, 6:17 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > valid? > > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > > - a coil has higher mass when current passes through it > > - the mass of an object will increase with its altitude > > - the mass of an object will increase with its temperature > > - a spring's mass increases when compressed or stretched > > - compressing a quantity of gas will increase its mass > > > To generalize the above, an exchange of energy (of any kind) is > > equivalent to an exchange of mass. > > > Thank you. > > I have a recording of E saying mass and energy are both equivalent > manifestations of the same thing. So, as per the mass-energy > equivalence, all of the above is correct. While e = mc^2 has been > verified by other means, in the above cases the change in mass is way > to small to ever be measured. So, while the statements are technically > correct, their validity has to be taken for granted. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: Tony M on 5 Apr 2010 11:21
Thank you all for your comments. I asked the question because when I was taught the mass-energy equivalence principle, back in high-school physics, they only presented it in the context of nuclear fusion/ fission reactions. I wanted to confirm for myself that it has general applicability to all the other "conventional" forms of energy, and more than that, a change in energy literally means a change in mass, without exception, and it's not just a "loose correspondence" like someone here said. The magnitude of the change is irrelevant as I do not plan to measure it. It was a purely theoretical question. |