Thread: Reflecting cold
View Single Post
  #245   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Lieutenant Scott Lieutenant Scott is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,918
Default Reflecting cold

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:24:37 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:43:16 -0000, harry wrote:

On Nov 10, 8:29 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:38:57 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/2011 20:20, dennis@home wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

It is a corollary of the famous E = mc^2 equation.

And where does that say that if you increase the energy in a
system you
increase its mass?

Are you really so thick that you cannot rearrange the equation?

m = E/c^2

c^2 being a rather large number makes the change in mass effect
small for
modest energies but it is not always negligible.

So if you move an object on Earth to a larger distance you increase
the
potential energy.
Which one actually increases in mass, the Earth or the object?

I'd say neither. That's POTENTIAL energy.

--http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you move an object away from Earth you increase its potential
energy.


Yes, but I don't see why that means it's mass has to increase. It has
POTENTIAL energy, and not the same as the kinetic energy from a fast
moving object as below.


What happens is that the earth and the object gain mass, and whoever is
doing the pushing loses it.

Energy and mass are conserved, but you are moving teeny bits around.


Nonsense. How would this mass be transported?


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Caller: "I'd like the RSPCA please".
Operator: "Where are you calling from?"
Caller: "The living room".