Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> They're not the same. But the difference between them isn't the mass. 
>> It's the patterns the mass is moving in, and the interactions.
> 
>   You have still refused to answer the question of whether mass can be
> converted to other forms of energy.
> 
>   Saying "no, because mass is energy" is like, when asked the question
> "can water be converted into ice", answering "no, because water is ice".

All forms of energy are stored as mass. Thus, the only kind of energy is 
mass. There are lots of different ways of storing energy in mass (as in, 
kinetic energy, heat energy, potential energy, elastic energy, chemical 
energy), but they all manifest as mass.

It's like saying "Can H2O be converted into different kinds of water?" 
When I say "No, because H2O is water", you say "well, what about Wiki, 
that talks about ice and steam and oceans and rain?"  They're all H2O. 
You can convert rain to steam and steam to ice, but you can't convert 
H2O into different kinds of H2O.  "Different kinds of energy" are like 
"steam" and "rain" and "ice."  It's all H2O, so you can't convert water 
into different kinds of steam or different kinds of ice.

That's why I said the answer to your question is Mu.  It's a category 
error to even ask the question. Different kinds of energy are different 
arrangements of mass. You can rearrange the mass, but you can't "convert 
it to energy".

It's like asking "can you convert photons into different kinds of 
electromagnetic radiation?"  And then pointing to the Wiki which lists 
gamma rays, visible light, and radio waves, and saying "See?"

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message