Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 Apr 2010 23:23 On Apr 13, 4:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Fundamanetal energy comes from the square of the universal speed > limit. > > Mitch Raemsch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence "The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes. It does not imply that mass may be converted to energy, for modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. In cases where matter particles are created or destroyed, the precursors and products retain both the original mass and energy, which is unchanged. Mass energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics." The products retain the original mass because the product is aether. In AD, the mass moves from one location to another as aether. In AD, the moved aether is more correctly described as displaced. In AD, the displacement of aether and the associated waves in the aether is energy.
From: spudnik on 14 Apr 2010 16:48 from a reference perusing a cite, it seems that the paper was by Dicke; I read *of* this in a bound set of journals, possibly not at Caltech (a-hem). > herr doktor-professor E., when he was presented > with an article at his office in Caltech -- that thus: tripolar co-ordinates are not euler direction cosines, which is just a homogenous form of vectorial direction in space. > Non-Abelian tables (such as most Clifford algebras) do not give > additive angles. As it is difficult to find compact expressions for > the sizes of groups with over 12 elements, I have only defined a few > larger polar duals. thus: darn; I thought, from the header, you were using a multiplier of 7 ... and that made me realize, the professors who do that, are subverting the "big Oh" and "little oh" formalism. that partition of the triplet is so important, vuz Brun's constant! > for x,y > 7, twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y) > where twins is the prime twins counting function, > where 3,5,7 is considered as 2 twins. thus: just because it was British, I'd assume that the folks at E.Anglia did this, on purpose. "global" warming is almost & assiduously all computerized simulacra, and extremely limited reporting, about glaciers e.g. > >http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm thus: to recap my reply to the TEDdies comments (as I am still listening to B.Greene's pop-sci talk ... zzzz), first of all, Minkowski made a silly slogan about ordinary phase-space, then he died. thank you! > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html thus: they were just at the library auditorium, selling the electromags to cure depression.... beats the heck out of electroconvulsing, but I missed the refreshments! thus: I didn't get the gist of the CBS reportage, although it seemed to be literate & wikipediaized (yeeha .-) seemed like "more decimal points," although there was a (wikip.) bibliographic note referring to Dicke -- I think, it was his paper that Einstein saw on one of his rare visits to his Caltech office, and pooh-poohed, regarding the predominant redshifitng of the heavens. thus: and, if at the centerof Sun is an iron core, the theory might have to be revized (don't laugh; not only was this a mainstream theory at one time, it may not have been laid to rest (in current research)). thus: Rob, you uneducated, global-warmed-over bog-creature -- did you create any oil, today?... seriously, that was amuzing about the cancellation-of-submission. reminds me of the time that Popular Science made an on-the-wayside attack upon S. Fred Singer; at the time they were owned by Times-Mirror, the then-owner of the LAtribcoTimes. the article was nominally and visually an aggrandizement of three professors (and taht could have included one of my own, at UCLA) of a theory about climate, which had been celebrated already (I think) with a Nobel. they included a mug-shot of the good doctor, along with no mention of his vitae; alas! thus: the Skeptics were a Greek cult in the Roman Pantheon, along with the Peripatetics, the Gnostics, the Solipsists etc. ad vomitorium; as long as the Emperor was the Top doG, you were left to your beliefs (til, of course, Jesus -- after it became the state church). thus: virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order -- is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is, historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization). I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with, that *no* database shows "overall" warming -- not that the climate is not changing, rapidly, in the Anthropocene. thus: instead, we should blame Pascal for discovering, experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean, it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy, with a German thrown-in for "triality." > of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity, > via the re-adumbration of his dead-as- > a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle, > "the photon." well, and/or "the aether," > necessitated by "the vacuum." --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --NASCAR rules on rotary engines! http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:46 On Apr 3, 6:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > As per the mass-energyequivalence, 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. > > Nice work! > I think you just squeezed 30 typewritten pages into > one paragraph. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass > > Sue... All http://wiktionary.org/wiki/nice work belongs in nesci.physics.relativity.
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:51 On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > The pattern above is: given a definite object (or volume contained in an > enclosure), when you put more energy into the object (or enclosure) the mass of > the object (or of the enclosure and contents) increases. Without that, it is not > possible to apply the "equivalence" in any sensible manner. "Enclosure" is a bit > too strong, as the example of the coil illustrates (the magnetic field of the > coil is not enclosed by the coil, but is rigidly connected to it) -- it is more > like "connected" than "enclosed". > > Note that lifting an object to higher altitude does not put more energy into the > object; in some sense, speaking loosely and in Newtonian terms, that is putting > energy into the gravitational field, not into the object itself. equivalent -> concurrent If energhy is between two bodies, then so is mass. (Mach's princip) -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 00:57
On Apr 6, 12:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 8:14 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > You don't have photons 'till there is a causally > > related absorption somewhere else and AFAIK no more > > fundamental particles are known of. > > Fascinating. So let's see if I have this right. > The sun has a certain power output, which corresponds to a certain > number of photons per second by a rather straightforward calculation. > But only a fraction of them are ever absorbed, and only a fraction of > those are identified in an Earth laboratory as being photons. > According to you, we are permitted to presume that the photons that > are absorbed somewhere else are in fact photons, but that the ones > that are not absorbed at all are not photons. So if the bulk of the > sun's power output is not carried away by photons, then by what is all > that energy carried? No, all fotòns are virtval; interactions are carried by plasmòns. |