dennis@home wrote:


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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less
light because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

And I am saying it doesn't apply.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder
and hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy,
of which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the
top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

How?
They are moving slower in the one you claim has more mass.
E=mc2 says they have less energy.


Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity
in the slightest.

Go on then explain why when E=mc2 says you are wrong you still disagree?

because E=mC^2 says I am right.

energy has mass.

There are more ways of storing energy than binding it to kinetic energy
of molecules.