dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because
the subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles
slow down and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it

It has internal resistance. A completely different effect.

Its getting hot, so the molecules are moving faster so its getting more
mass according to you.


Indeed, but since its kicking more energy into the load than its gaining
as heat, there is a net loss.


and where the
energy is coming from as you (or claim to be) are putting all the
particles into a lower energy state to reduce their mass.


Well you have just said it. That is where all the energy is coming
from. Both to drive the load and make the battery hot.

But a hot battery is moving more so it must be more massive than before.
How can it be more massive if its supplying the energy?
According to you you have to reduce the mass to provide the energy.

It loses lets say 10X femtograms to provide the energy and gains 1
femtogram to get hot. Total weight loss 9 femtograms.

Simples!