Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 5 Apr 2010 11:52 "Tony M" <marcuac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3cb54012-e13d-4b89-9c01-e348a7bac185(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. You've not defined "change". By moving a mass you have in a sense "changed" it, although I'm sure you are thinking of depleting it, shaving off some small portion which vanishes into nothing while driving the cannonball into a wall. E = 1/2mV^2 = V/2 (mV). (I've used lower case m and capital V to imply a bullet with high velocity) By Newton's third law there is an equal and opposite reaction, so the energy given to the gun in its recoil is 1/2 Mv^2. Mv = mV, and if m =M then V = v, the energy is 2 * 1/2mv^2, or E = mv^2 in Newtonian physics. The purely theoretical question to ask is "What is matter?"
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 13:51 On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory called Aether Displacement. The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions from matter to aether is energy. Just to be clear, the post you are responding is not generally accepted, yet. 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: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 13:53 On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory called Aether Displacement. The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is energy. Just to be clear, the post you are responding is not generally accepted, yet. 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: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 13:55 On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. he post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory called Aether Displacement. The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is energy. Just to be clear, the post you are responding to is not generally accepted, yet. 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: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 13:55
On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory called Aether Displacement. The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is energy. Just to be clear, the post you are responding to is not generally accepted, yet. 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. |