Switch off at the socket?

J G Miller coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:21:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

'how much kinetic energy does a car travelling at 70mph have' 'kinetic
energy with respect to what? Kineti9c energy is a function of the
vectors sums of *oow* velocities..' 'energy is a scalar, so it doesn't
matter'

And no doubt forgetting that if you know exactly how much energy the car
has, you will not be able to determine exactly where the car is located

On that basis, my car should have infinite energy everytime I park it in the
multistory!

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of the
orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass as anyone
standing next to it will be able to confirm.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible.

That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Or even grass..

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum) rises
a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in potential
energy?


I think so, yes.

E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg. light,
heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated electromagnetic
energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Dave Farrance wrote:

This is not directed at any one person. Dave's message was merely the
most appropriate to hang my reply from.

Interesting discussion. Here's some food for thought:

If a sealed container does *not* allow particles to pass its walls but
*does* allow loss of energy via exchange of thermal radiation with its
outer environment, then a chemical reaction within that container could
increase the temperature within that container, and as it returns to its
original temperature it would lose energy and hence mass due to the
relativistic effect of slowing down the vibration (speed) of particles
within that container.

Thermal energy is based on motion, so is subject to special relativity.
Once the temperature returns to its initial value, the mass is the same
as initially.

On the other hand, consider potential energy. A mass at "rest" at
height does not mass any more or less when it's at "rest" having
produced work in descending. (We're neglecting the rotation of the
earth and other similar effects here, and assuming that there is no
measurable difference in the gravity gradient between the two points,
otherwise general relativity kicks in.)

What about a battery? It's a matter of definitions as to what you
consider an ideal battery to be. You *could* argue that an *ideal* battery
is sealed to prevent whole atoms from passing through its walls but is
allowed to exchange energy with its environment via more than one method.

Electrons go out; the same number of electrons come in, having done
work in the circuit. Net effect: no difference in mass.

But work is done accelerating them to get them to move.. if you like.

The mobile electrons thereby acquire extra mass.


Depending on the chemical reaction and the internal resistance of the
cell, there may be heat involved. That's a secondary issue. If you were
measuring the mass when experimenting, you'd allow the cell to return
to its initial temperature before taking the measurement.

Incidentally, good luck on measuring a 50kg car battery down to the
nearest nanogram.

well, exactly. Local variations in gravity like the Moon going by, would
be more measurable.

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it is
so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims that it
doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows that you
wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take it
from a system, that system loses mass.

[email protected] wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of
the orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass
as anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.



That's because they are stationary with respect to the car. If they were
measuring from somewhere else, it would.

You dont understand vectors either..

[email protected] coughed up some electrons that declared:



"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of the
orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its mass as
anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.

Special relativity does not apply unaided as acceleration is involved. You'd
need to consider General Relativity for that and I will admit GR is well
beyond me (horrible maths!)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole atoms?
Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost? How's that
work then?


E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:43:43 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

: The Natural Philosopher wrote:
:
: I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and
used to
: make heating oil. Is there a name for that?
:
: Extraordinary rendition, isn't it?

I'm larding by head off at that 'joke'... Please don't give the
ultra-right in the USA ideas. :~(

That would be a little like turkeys voting for Christmas. (*cough*
Rush Limbaugh. *Cough*.)

--

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Nevertheless it happens. Its just that for all practical purposes it
is so slight as to be utterly irrelevant: hence all these claims that
it doesn't happen. Relativity says it MUST happen, maths shows that
you wont be able to measure it when it does.

The whole thrust of Relativity is that energy IS mass. If you take it
from a system, that system loses mass.

The trouble is, you've taken a theory that explains away certain phenomena
that occur in really extreme circumstances only, for example at velocities
close to that of light, or in nuclear reactions, and have fallen into the
trap of believing that it therefore applies under all conditions as a
general principle. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Matter is not
converted into energy, nor vice versa, _at all_ except at the extremes. All
energy changes outside of those extremes occur through exchange of one form
of energy for another, kinetic energy into heat for example. They involve
no change of mass whatsoever, not even infinitessimally.