The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
dickhead?


The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Because relativity says its so. ANY release of energy is accompanied
by a loss of mass.

Its vanishingly small for typical mechanical and chemical energy, but
its there just the same.

If it isn't, relativity is falsified, and there is a huge hue and cry
out for an alternative.

Then you have completely misuderstood relativity. Energy and mass are
interconvertible but only under specific circumstances you will not find on
earth outside nuclear reactions. If release of energy is accompanied by a
reduction in mass then what you've got is nuclear fission. If you haven't
got nuclear fission then you don't get reduction of mass.

Outside of nuclear reactions, all you have is energy conservation and mass
conservation, and they are entirely separate. One form of energy can be
converted into another, but not into mass, and mass can never be converted
into energy.

Storing electrical energy in a battery is actually a conversion of
electrical energy into chemical energy. Discharging the battery is the
reverse. Mass is not involved in any way, even infinitessimally. If you
think it is, you are just wrong, wrong, wrong.