The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And
you can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any
time. But those calculations only have any significance or
relevance if what you're doing is actually converting mass into
energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually converted into
energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions and
radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc
etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source like
that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you numerous times to
provide the definition of mass that you use and give its source and, every
time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're asking us to dismiss an
established definition and replace it with, well, what exactly? Something
woolly and undefined with no scientific foundation which you just state
supports your case when there is no justification for that at all.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway, I
though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.


How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly
the same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same
number of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass that we
have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology,
mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you increase the
quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its mass.

That's logic, see?

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases with
heating.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the definition of
mass.


Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of energy
there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was chemical energy, I
could easily release that and convert it into kinetic energy, like I do in a
car. But how do I do it with a lump of lead? Should be easy enough if it's
energy already surely.



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly say
that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads logically and
inevitably to the fact that they do.