Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391143 > unrolled thread

Negative Gravity?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 06:53 +1000
    Negative Gravity? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 18:08 -0700
    Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-28 22:08 -0500
      Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 21:01 +1000
        Re: Negative Gravity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 12:12 -0700
          Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 07:02 +1000
            Re: Negative Gravity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 15:10 -0700
              Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 10:16 -0500
                Re: Negative Gravity? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-31 23:07 -0700
        Re: Negative Gravity? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 19:15 -0700
          Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:59 +1000
      Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 11:37 -0700
        Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 21:00 -0500
          Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:31 +1000
            Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-02 18:05 -0700
              Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 08:19 -0500
                Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-03 09:55 -0700
              Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 08:00 +1000
                Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-03 18:36 -0700
            Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-06 12:22 -0500
              Re: Negative Gravity? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 08:35 +1000
    Re: Negative Gravity? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 21:48 -0700
      Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 21:53 +1000
        Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 10:11 -0500
          Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-12 10:21 -0700
            Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 22:39 -0500
              Re: Negative Gravity? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 08:16 +1000
                Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-13 18:26 -0500
                  Re: Negative Gravity? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 08:29 +1000
                    Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 23:23 -0500
                    Re: Negative Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:42 +0000
                      Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 12:37 -0500
                        Re: Negative Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:30 +0000
                          Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 23:30 -0500
                            Re: Negative Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:23 +0000
                      Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:40 +1000
                        Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 16:13 -0500
                        Re: Negative Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:34 +0000
                          Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-17 04:29 +1000
                            Re: Negative Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 21:05 +0000
              Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-13 15:58 -0700
                Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-13 18:40 -0500
                  Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 12:56 -0700
                    Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 13:34 -0700
                    Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:40 -0500
                    Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 23:53 -0500
                      Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-16 11:37 -0700
                        Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:21 -0500
                        Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:21 -0500
                        Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:25 -0500
                          Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-19 12:43 -0700
                            Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 17:01 -0500
                              Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
                                Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 09:23 -0500
                                Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 17:54 -0700
                                  Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 20:15 -0700
                                    Re: Negative Gravity? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 12:32 -0700
                                      Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 15:03 -0700
                                  Re: Negative Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:48 -0500
                      Re: Negative Gravity? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-17 04:41 +1000
                        Re: Negative Gravity? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 11:14 -0500
                          Re: Negative Gravity? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 23:20 -0700
    Re: Negative Gravity? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-29 08:59 -0700
    Negative Gravity? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-29 09:57 -0700
    Re: Negative Gravity? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 11:48 -0700
      Re: Negative Gravity? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 14:16 -0700
      Re: Negative Gravity? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-31 14:46 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#392249

On 07/09/16 03:22, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/2/16 9/2/16 - 6:31 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> Because we are not biologically equipped to actually SEE fields, we do
>> not regard them as being material. This is most unscientific.
>
> Wilson just does not think things through, and has a VERY shallow
> understanding of the world and how we humans relate to it.
>
> Paraphrasing: Because we are not biologically equipped to actually SEE
> the sun at night, we do not regard it as being material. This is most
> unscientific.
>
> How silly! And shallow. Essentially everything we humans do is based
> upon our mental models of the world we inhabit. The vast majority of
> those models are based on inferences and conclusions, not direct
> observations. Wilson doesn't have a clue....

Certainly Physical theory has overcome many of our biological 
limitations but people like you still cannot see that even our concept 
of 3D space is purely psychological. Our brains merely receive 
electrical signals and portray the information as a mental graphic. We 
can never know the true form of space or whether other lifeforms 
visualize it differently. A red rose isn't 'red'. Our minds create the 
sensation of a 'colour' according to which electrical signals are received.
It is known that some other animals can detect electric or magnetic 
fields and almost certainly display them somehow internally. We don't 
possess that ability.
If somebody could come up with a way to make fields visible, that might 
help us to understand them.

So I think Tom should learn a little psychology before making such 
purile remarks.


> Tom Roberts


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391156

The EM drive might not be a fake:

http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html

Mr. Shawyer made one for anti-gravity

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391168

On 29/08/16 14:48, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> The EM drive might not be a fake:
>
> http://www.emdrive.com/interview.html
>
> Mr. Shawyer made one for anti-gravity


Hahahhahaa! Very funny.....

Incidentally, if there was an easy way to convert mass into energy which 
could then be used to provide such a force, what would be the maximum 
attainable speed...assuming that whatever matter was left was useful? In 
other words, how might a 'matter engine' fueled by mc^2 compare with a 
present day rocket engine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391235

On 8/29/16 8/29/16 - 6:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Incidentally, if there was an easy way to convert mass into energy which could
> then be used to provide such a force, what would be the maximum attainable
> speed...assuming that whatever matter was left was useful? In other words, how
> might a 'matter engine' fueled by mc^2 compare with a present day rocket engine.

It's remarkable in how many ways Wilson displays his personal ignorance of very 
basic physics.

A "present day rocket engine" is indeed "fueled by mc^2". That is, its thrust is 
generated by the mass difference between its fuel and its exhaust. It _DOES_ 
"convert mass into energy".

	Hint: look up "exothermic chemical reaction", and study the
	masses involved; be sure to use at least 12 significant digits.
	Chemists, of course, use binding energy, which essentially
	subtracts away the very much larger mass of each atom/molecule.

That mass difference for rocket fuel corresponds to a fraction of an eV per 
atom. An atomic bomb or nuclear reactor, on the other hand, utilizes ~ 200 MeV 
per atom when U235 fissions -- hundreds of millions of times larger (per atom) 
than a chemical reaction. The details differ, but the basic idea is no different 
in principle:
	energy released = (mass[initial] - mass[final]) * c^2


BTW the "maximum attainable speed" for devices like rockets has proven to be an 
engineering issue, not any question of physics....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392160

On August 30, tjrob137 wrote:
> A "present day rocket engine" is indeed "fueled by mc^2". 
> That is, its thrust is generated by the mass difference between 
> its fuel and its exhaust. It _DOES_ "convert mass into energy".
>   look up "exothermic chemical reaction", and study the
>  masses involved; be sure to use at least 12 significant digits.
>  Chemists, of course, use binding energy, which essentially
> subtracts away the very much larger mass of each atom/molecule.

That's an interesting way to view it.

What about:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194

oops, you need to subscribe -
try Google News, search:  WSJ + supergun 

.... which ought to work, I don't know why - 


Where's the relativistic mass --> energy conversion?



--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392192

On 9/12/16 9/12/16   12:21 PM, RichD wrote:
> On August 30, tjrob137 wrote:
>> A "present day rocket engine" is indeed "fueled by mc^2".
>> That is, its thrust is generated by the mass difference between
>> its fuel and its exhaust. It _DOES_ "convert mass into energy".
>>   look up "exothermic chemical reaction", and study the
>>  masses involved; be sure to use at least 12 significant digits.
>>  Chemists, of course, use binding energy, which essentially
>> subtracts away the very much larger mass of each atom/molecule.
>
> That's an interesting way to view it.

It's the normal way of looking at it, once one understands modern physics.


> What about [a railgun]
> try Google News, search:  WSJ + supergun
> Where's the relativistic mass --> energy conversion?

In the capacitors used to energize it.

	BTW be sure to parse your question correctly: it is the
	mass --> energy conversion of relativity, not a
	"relativistic mass" --> energy conversion. After all,
	"relativistic mass" is misnamed and is really energy.

If you look carefully and accurately enough, you'll always find some mass 
differences when energy is transformed. For instance, in a hydroelectric plant 
the mass decrease corresponding to the electricity produced is in the total mass 
of earth+water; but there is a corresponding mass increase in whatever used the 
electricity (it ultimately gets converted to heat).

	For a closed system, if you heat it up its mass increases by
	an amount E/c^2, where E is the energy you injected to heat
	it up. The earth (+ atmosphere) is approximately a closed
	system -- but only approximately; global warming is primarily
	due to a changing balance between energy input from the sun
	and energy radiated into space (there is also a tiny component
	due to releasing energy stored eons ago).


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392248

On 13/09/16 13:39, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/12/16 9/12/16   12:21 PM, RichD wrote:

>
> If you look carefully and accurately enough, you'll always find some
> mass differences when energy is transformed. For instance, in a
> hydroelectric plant the mass decrease corresponding to the electricity
> produced is in the total mass of earth+water; but there is a
> corresponding mass increase in whatever used the electricity (it
> ultimately gets converted to heat).
>
>      For a closed system, if you heat it up its mass increases by
>      an amount E/c^2, where E is the energy you injected to heat
>      it up. The earth (+ atmosphere) is approximately a closed
>      system -- but only approximately; global warming is primarily
>      due to a changing balance between energy input from the sun
>      and energy radiated into space (there is also a tiny component
>      due to releasing energy stored eons ago).

Without wishing to disagree, is there any evidence which indicates that 
the equation E=mc^2 applies to any form of energy other than that 
released from changes in nuclear binding forces?

>
> Tom Roberts


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392258

On 9/13/16 9/13/16   5:16 PM, HGW wrote:
> Without wishing to disagree, is there any evidence which indicates that the
> equation E=mc^2 applies to any form of energy other than that released from
> changes in nuclear binding forces?

Once again you show that you cannot read -- the answer was given in the article 
to which you are responding: chemistry. And there are others such as muon decay, 
the annihilation of e+ e- => gamma + gamma, and many others in the realm of 
particle physics.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392366

On 14/09/16 09:26, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/13/16 9/13/16   5:16 PM, HGW wrote:
>> Without wishing to disagree, is there any evidence which indicates
>> that the
>> equation E=mc^2 applies to any form of energy other than that released
>> from
>> changes in nuclear binding forces?
>
> Once again you show that you cannot read -- the answer was given in the
> article to which you are responding: chemistry. And there are others
> such as muon decay, the annihilation of e+ e- => gamma + gamma, and many
> others in the realm of particle physics.

Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct 
evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged 
or water gets heavier when heated.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.


> Tom Roberts
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392404

On 9/14/16 9/14/16   5:29 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 14/09/16 09:26, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 9/13/16 9/13/16   5:16 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> Without wishing to disagree, is there any evidence which indicates
>>> that the
>>> equation E=mc^2 applies to any form of energy other than that released
>>> from
>>> changes in nuclear binding forces?
>>
>> Once again you show that you cannot read -- the answer was given in the
>> article to which you are responding: chemistry. And there are others
>> such as muon decay, the annihilation of e+ e- => gamma + gamma, and many
>> others in the realm of particle physics.
>
> Those are nuclear type transformations.

Once again you demonstrate your colossal ignorance of basic physics. Those are 
NOT AT ALL "nuclear type reactions", they are electromagnetic or weak 
interactions; not the strong interactions of "nuclear binding forces".


> I am not aware of any direct evidence
> that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged or water gets
> heavier when heated.

Direct evidence? I know of none -- experimental resolutions are not good enough. 
But these phenomena are predicted by a theory which has extensive experimental 
support and no refutations.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392463

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct 
>evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged 
>or water gets heavier when heated.

>I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.

Ralph, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.

E=mc^2 so m=E/c^2.

It works out to be 1.11x10^-17 kilograms.

Do you think anyone can measure the mass increase of, say, a
battery charged with a joule of energy vs. discharged?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392470

On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 10:42 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> [...]

The Delta0 baryon can be considered to be an excited state of the neutron, as 
they have the same quark content (udd). The Delta0 mass is 1232 MeV/c^2, while 
the neutron mass is 939 MeV/c^2; the former usually decays into the latter plus 
a pi0 (though other modes are observed). There are many other such examples....

Since the binding force among quarks is the strong interaction, the separation 
between excited states is much larger, and easily measurable.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392533

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:

>On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 10:42 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> [...]

>The Delta0 baryon can be considered to be an excited state of the neutron, as 
>they have the same quark content (udd). The Delta0 mass is 1232 MeV/c^2, while 
>the neutron mass is 939 MeV/c^2; the former usually decays into the latter plus 
>a pi0 (though other modes are observed). There are many other such examples....

>Since the binding force among quarks is the strong interaction, the separation 
>between excited states is much larger, and easily measurable.

Interesting, but just how does this relate to the mass of 1 joule of
energy added to a battery's mass and how that change in mass could be
measured?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392539

On 9/15/16 9/15/16   10:30 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 10:42 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> [...]
>
>> The Delta0 baryon can be considered to be an excited state of the neutron, as
>> they have the same quark content (udd). The Delta0 mass is 1232 MeV/c^2, while
>> the neutron mass is 939 MeV/c^2; the former usually decays into the latter plus
>> a pi0 (though other modes are observed). There are many other such examples....
>
>> Since the binding force among quarks is the strong interaction, the separation
>> between excited states is much larger, and easily measurable.
>
> Interesting, but just how does this relate to the mass of 1 joule of
> energy added to a battery's mass and how that change in mass could be
> measured?

Excited states have more mass than the ground state. This thread has been 
discussing whether adding energy really increases mass; it does.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392595

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:

>On 9/15/16 9/15/16   10:30 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/15/16 9/15/16 - 10:42 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>
>>> The Delta0 baryon can be considered to be an excited state of the neutron, as
>>> they have the same quark content (udd). The Delta0 mass is 1232 MeV/c^2, while
>>> the neutron mass is 939 MeV/c^2; the former usually decays into the latter plus
>>> a pi0 (though other modes are observed). There are many other such examples....
>>
>>> Since the binding force among quarks is the strong interaction, the separation
>>> between excited states is much larger, and easily measurable.
>>
>> Interesting, but just how does this relate to the mass of 1 joule of
>> energy added to a battery's mass and how that change in mass could be
>> measured?

>Excited states have more mass than the ground state. This thread has been 
>discussing whether adding energy really increases mass; it does.

Quite true.

It is also seen in certain excited states of some nuclei.  They have measurably
different masses than the ground state nucleus.

It's just that for chemical or mechanical reactions, the mass equivalent of
the energy is extremely small in comparison to the mass of what is reacting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392481

On 16/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>
>> Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct
>> evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged
>> or water gets heavier when heated.
>
>> I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.
>
> Ralph, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.
>
> E=mc^2 so m=E/c^2.
>
> It works out to be 1.11x10^-17 kilograms.
>
> Do you think anyone can measure the mass increase of, say, a
> battery charged with a joule of energy vs. discharged?

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA!
Poor little moron-y obviously doesn't know how huge a single joule is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392489

On 9/15/2016 3:40 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 16/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct
>>> evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged
>>> or water gets heavier when heated.
>>
>>> I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.
>>
>> Ralph, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.
>>
>> E=mc^2 so m=E/c^2.
>>
>> It works out to be 1.11x10^-17 kilograms.
>>
>> Do you think anyone can measure the mass increase of, say, a
>> battery charged with a joule of energy vs. discharged?
>
> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA!
> Poor little moron-y obviously doesn't know how huge a single joule is?
>

A 100 g object falling from waist high has about a joule of kinetic 
energy by the time it lands. The small travel size tubes of hand lotion 
or shampoo you can carry through security at the airport have about that 
mass. Other objects you can drop from about table height to get the same 
energy: a dinner fork, a banana, a small bar of soap, a small box of 
paper clips, a salt shaker, a D-cell battery, a hamburger patty, a third 
of a cup of mayo.

Yup a joule is a fearsome amount of energy.

As a reminder, a kW-hr of electricity, which will cost you about 12 
cents, is 3.6 million of those fearsome amounts of energy.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392534

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 16/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct
>>> evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged
>>> or water gets heavier when heated.
>>
>>> I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.
>>
>> Ralph, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.
>>
>> E=mc^2 so m=E/c^2.
>>
>> It works out to be 1.11x10^-17 kilograms.
>>
>> Do you think anyone can measure the mass increase of, say, a
>> battery charged with a joule of energy vs. discharged?

>HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA!
>Poor little moron-y obviously doesn't know how huge a single joule is?

Yes, Ralph, it's the energy a 100 gram stone has when dropped from a 
height of 1 meter.  Huge only to an ant. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392602

On 16/09/16 13:34, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>
>> On 16/09/16 01:42, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>>
>>>> Those are nuclear type transformations. I am not aware of any direct
>>>> evidence that, for instance, a battery gets heavier when being charged
>>>> or water gets heavier when heated.
>>>
>>>> I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just questioning the evidence.
>>>
>>> Henry, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.
>>>
>>> E=mc^2 so m=E/c^2.
>>>
>>> It works out to be 1.11x10^-17 kilograms.
>>>
>>> Do you think anyone can measure the mass increase of, say, a
>>> battery charged with a joule of energy vs. discharged?
>
>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA!
>> Poor little moron-y obviously doesn't know how huge a single joule is?
>
> Yes, Henry, it's the energy a 100 gram stone has when dropped from a
> height of 1 meter.  Huge only to an ant.

I was being sarcastic, you poor idiots! Joules are tiny!

A charged 100V 100AH battery contains 3.6e7 of them....so its mass 
increase should be around 3 micro-grams....maybe not impossible!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392637

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 16/09/16 13:34, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Henry, calculate the mass of 1 Joule of energy.
>> Yes, Henry, it's the energy a 100 gram stone has when dropped from a

Ralph, I see you really did overdose on stupid, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>> height of 1 meter.  Huge only to an ant.

>I was being sarcastic, you poor idiots! Joules are tiny!

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, don't try to hide your mistake, Ralph.
We know you screwed up by thinking a joule was huge, Ralph.

>A charged 100V 100AH battery contains 3.6e7 of them....so its mass 
>increase should be around 3 micro-grams....maybe not impossible!

0.3 micrograms, Ralph Rabbidge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web