Switch off at the socket?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:59:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher pondered:

Paul Martin is a common name but...

Even Prime Ministers have been named Paul Martin.

http://img17.imageshack.US/img17/711/martinpauljan21web9ne.jpg

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:

One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.

How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:

One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.

How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]


So the Cambridge and Imperial College men now seem to be saying that
neither has a clue. Makes the rest of us feel better I suppose.

"[email protected]" wrote in message
...

No you have not, go on explain it.
Just admit that your claim that all energy storage increases mass is
wrong.
Either that or explain why the hotter water (with the higher relativistic
mass) is at the bottom after releasing energy and how that fits with your
claim.

Do you have any idea at all how little idea you have about what's going on
here?

Hint : Mass != Density. Another hint : The mass changes people are talking
about here are _tiny_.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"[email protected]" wrote in message
...

No you have not, go on explain it.
Just admit that your claim that all energy storage increases mass is
wrong.
Either that or explain why the hotter water (with the higher relativistic
mass) is at the bottom after releasing energy and how that fits with your
claim.

Do you have any idea at all how little idea you have about what's going on
here?

Hint : Mass != Density. Another hint : The mass changes people are talking
about here are _tiny_.

Did you see me mention volume anywhere?
Why do you want to introduce an irrelevant measure into this?
I said the same water, molecule for molecule.
It goes to show how little you know.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:26:54 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

And comedians (who have had to change their names under Equity rules)
and ATV schools programme producers...

But not quite as well known as the former Prime Minister, or perhaps the
New Jersey Devils hockey player

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less
light because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat
energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

I sometimes wonder if even teaching special relativity to undergrads is a
tactical error. It leads to all kinds of confusion on the part of those
that assume special relativity *is* relativity and there is nothing else to
'relativity'.

Thus allowing people to pop up with all kinds of mistakes like the "twin
paradox" and - in this thread - ideas like "relativitic energy" that...

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder
and hence stuff is moving more slowly.

,,,they assume only arises due to differences in velocity in the
measurement frame.

Maybe the error was using the word 'Special' which might make it seem 'more
important' than mere 'General'. :-) Whereas the 'special' means something
like "Relativity for simplified situations where we ignore many factors
that may turn out to matter in reality".

Alas in my experience General Relativity is often taught by theorists and
mathematicians who use math without bothering much with mere words. Which
is fair enough given that some of the ideas are difficult for some to
grasp. And OK for others who can twig from the maths. But leads to people
not seeing the physics for the maths.

Yes, General Relativity does indeed say that the inertial mass of items
does vary if you move them up or down in a gravitational field. Yes, that
would be for each individual atom, or other particle. But don't take my
word for it. Go read the textbooks on the topic if you doubt this. Then
check out some of the experimental tests that have been done to probe the
relaibility of GR.

That said, I think I do agree that the problem here is probably the density
of trolls rather than the mass of physical objects. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 2009-09-22, Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:
One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.
How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]

To an outside observer, the mass increases. To the object, in its own
frame of reference, there is no change in mass. In fact, from its point
of view the outside observer has gained mass.

Which makes sense to anyone who has ever attended a school reunion.
Everybody except you always looks much fatter.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:23:54 +0100, Paul Martin explained:

To an outside observer, the mass increases. To the object, in its own
frame of reference, there is no change in mass.

But an object can only be aware of its mass unless it interacts with
something else.

In fact is it not true to say that an object only has existence because
of its relationship to / interaction with other objects?

Is there any formal relationship to the similar observation:

Returning Astronauts: We have been gone 3 days

Earth Observers: No, you have been gone 3 years

In fact, from its point of view the outside observer has gained mass.

Yes it all depends on the frame of reference.

So since everything is apparently in motion (assuming the universe
is expanding) how can anybody say with certain what the rest mass
of an object is?

Even if the universe is not expanding, measuring the mass of an apparently
"stationary" object is still not going to give it its rest mass since it
is moving relative the the axis of the earth and also relative the the
axis of rotation of the solar system.

So if there was no observer, the mass would not have changed at all?

You are carrying:
tea,
no tea,

Why no coffee?

the thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is...

And a cat which may or may not be dead?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:18:00 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:

That's Entropy, man.

Entropy has a bad tendency to increase.

So if entropy is increasing, does that not mean that there was a
starting point where things were more ordered?

How are more ordered systems put into place?

Do they just occur randomly from big bangs?