Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429083

Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: What Do Dingleberries Actually Mean When They Claim Moving Clocks Run Slow?
Date	2017-08-17 08:05 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<on2fij$1h78$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <459395c0-08ea-43b0-924d-6b48a6a42f36@googlegroups.com> <omtkpg$ck3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <9eab92f1-dac0-4414-b99d-5529c37d56a7@googlegroups.com> <on14hv$1djh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <11a73817-68f0-4a0a-bd96-35f083e33470@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/08/17 00:39, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
>> Of course I meant they can have relative speeds. But as I said, an

> No, inertia is an attribute of mass, and more fundamentally of 
> energy, also known as relativistic mass.
> 
>> Name one form of energy that somehow resists change.
> 
> Again, *every* form of energy resists changes in its state of
> motion. I gave you examples previously, such as the fact that if we
> heat an object by adding a quantity of energy E, the heated object's
> rest mass increases by E/c^2.  Also, when a block of radium emits 
> radiation with energy E, its rest mass decreases by E/c^2.  Also, 
> some of the inertia (relativistic mass) of a tank of gasoline is due 
> to the chemical binding energy of the molecules.  Also, a rock of 
> rest mass m0, moving at speed v, resists changes in its state of 
> motion as if it had mass m0/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2).  Hence if we put 
> energy E into accelerating the rock, the increase in relativistic 
> mass is E/c^2.  Even a photon, with no rest mass at all, has 
> momentum, and resists changes in its state of motion according to
> its energy.  (When a photon hits an object it exerts a "kick", and
> when emitted there is a recoil on the source.)

You keep making the same silly mistake. When energy is converted to 
mass, it is the latter that resists acceleration not the energy.


> 
> When a uranium atom splits apart into smaller atoms, the sum of the 
> rest masses of the parts is less than the rest mass of the original 
> atom (by an amount equal to the binding energy), but the total 
> relativistic mass (i.e., mass-energy) is unchanged, because the
> parts have HUGE kinetic energies.  In effect, splitting the atom
> converts some of the binding energy of the original atom into kinetic
> energy of the parts.  After the released parts have given up their
> kinetic energy to the surroundings (by obliterating them), they have
> less combined rest mass than the original total uranium atom.

Yes we know that.
Actually, there is no proof that ordinary mass can be converted to 
energy according to E=mc^2. That relationship is only known to apply to 
binding energy. This again raises the question as to what 'mass' really 
is...

> The point of all this is just that there is nothing logically 
> impossible about energy having inertia.  In fact, it is consistent 
> with everything we know, and explains many otherwise inexplicable 
> things.  Nothing you've said gives any support to your claim that 
> energy cannot logically have inertia, i.e., that E cannot logically 
> equal mc^2.

I didn't say that. I said energy does not normally resist change...that 
being the crux of the definition of inertia. You are totally confused as 
to what inertia is and believe it is always the same thing as mass.



--

Thread

csiph-web