Darren New wrote:
> E=mc^2
> 
> Energy and mass are the same thing. You can't take mass and turn it into 
> energy, because it's the same thing.

Bzz bzzt.  'Equivalent' does not mean 'the same thing'.  There is a 
definite difference between mass and energy.  At the very least, 'mass' 
is a subset of 'energy'.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Absolutely! It's just that in everydays terms, it's to small to be evaluated 
> using ordinary instruments. Heat is manifested by an increase in the average 
> motion of the atoms around a resting location. More heat = faster and longer 
> movements of the atoms. Faster movement = more kynetic energy.

  That sounds a bit like saying that a combustion motor *is* a lightbulb
because the energy consumed by both can be measureds in watts.

  Common properties don't necessarily make to things the same.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Yes. As the atoms move faster, they gain mass due to relativistic 
>> increases.  Yeah, really.
> 
> They don't.  While to the outside observer there's no visible/relevant 
> difference between an *apparent* change in mass and an *actual* change 
> in mass, it's still not the same thing. 

Err, sorry?  Are you trying to make a joke or something?

-- 
   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

Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> E=mc^2
>>
>> Energy and mass are the same thing. You can't take mass and turn it 
>> into energy, because it's the same thing.
> 
> Bzz bzzt.  'Equivalent' does not mean 'the same thing'.  There is a 
> definite difference between mass and energy.  At the very least, 'mass' 
> is a subset of 'energy'.

And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Absolutely! It's just that in everydays terms, it's to small to be evaluated 
>> using ordinary instruments. Heat is manifested by an increase in the average 
>> motion of the atoms around a resting location. More heat = faster and longer 
>> movements of the atoms. Faster movement = more kynetic energy.
> 
>   That sounds a bit like saying that a combustion motor *is* a lightbulb
> because the energy consumed by both can be measureds in watts.
> 
>   Common properties don't necessarily make to things the same.

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.

-- 
   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

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".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Ah, but there ARE different kinds of H₂O.  2 Deuterium + 1 Oxygen is 
still water.  XD

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?

Any energy that isn't in the *form* of mass isn't mass.  The end. 
You're basically saying that all mathematical figures are the same thing 
because they're just different representations of sets of points.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> And what energy isn't mass, then, given that E=mc^2 and c is a constant?
> 
> Any energy that isn't in the *form* of mass isn't mass.

Name energy that isn't in the form of mass?

Then explain what E=mc^2 means.

-- 
   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