sci.physics

On Feb 19, 12:54=A0am, Zilla wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:34=A0pm, "...@" <...@>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 4:27=A0pm, Zilla wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 9:47=A0pm, "...@" <...@>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hello,
>
> > > > I've been reading an article by Einstein about the mass-energy
> > > > equivalence, and I'm having trouble understanding it. This is what h=
e
> > > > says:
>
> > > > "Now we can reverse the relation [of E=3Dmc^2] and say that an incre=
ase
> > > > of E in the amount of energy must be accompanied by an increase of E=
/
> > > > c^2 in the mass. I can easily supply energy to the mass -- for
> > > > instance, if I heat it by 10 degrees."
> > > > Then he goes on to say that the mass will increase, but by a measure=

> > > > too tiny to be noted by us.
>
> > > > Why does the mass of an object increase when you supply energy to it=
?
> > > > I don't get it. What does the mass-energy equivalence mean? That the=

> > > > mass of an object should be added to its kinetic energy and chemical=

> > > > energy as another category of energy?
>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ram.
>
> > > It's because of special relativity and the nature of space-time.
> > > Special relativity is simply a consequence of rotational symmetry
> > > of space-time. When I say space-time. Don't think about them
> > > separate but think always of space time as in "space-time" ()
> > > (which can be expanded like a baloon as in the Big Bang
> > > or contracted to a singurality like in the black hole). If space
> > > and time are just newtonian space and time. Those tricks
> > > won't and can't be done. So always think of "space-time" as one.
> > > This produces the consequences of thermal energy, kinetic
> > > energy becoming mass as seen in another frame of reference
> > > for total conservation of mass-energy due to space-time
> > > algorithm and mathematics used by reality which uses symmetry
> > > and patterns so reality computer can process them more efficiently..
>
> > > Z.
>
> > Please explain this to me:
> > If I heat up a body, does its mass increase, even by a tiny amount? If
> > so, how does this make sense? Why when I add energy to a body, does
> > its mass increase? If mass and energy are equivalent, then I can
> > transfer mass into energy (. atomic bomb) and vice versa, but WHY
> > when I add some energy, the mass increases? Why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well. Imagine a box with particles inside. If the particles move
> faster and faster. The box would weigh more because it has
> more energy and mass (this assume the energy to move the
> particles come from outside the box and not some mass inside the
> box converted to thermal energy... because in such close system
> and conservation of energy, the mass of the box is the same).
> Now imagine the box is moving faster and faster. Do you
> think the box would weigh more or the same. The answer
> is both depending on the point of reference. From
> the point of view of the box. Its mass and weight depends on
> the fast moving particles only (let's assume a weight of 5 kilos).
> But for someone in another frame of reference looking at the
> faster moving box which move at say 2/3 the speed of light.
> The mass would increase and the weight becoming
> let say 400 kilos. So is the box 5 kilos or 400 kilos. It
> depends on the point of reference. When you hear about
> mass increasing when energy is added to it. It is always
> from the point of view of another reference. Get this
> so far? if not, analyze this and ask questions. You must
> understand this thoroughly now so it won't mess up your
> understanding which can last a lifelime.. For example.. Porat.
> He didn't understand this 30 years ago... now 60 yrs old
> and his brain neutrons more unflexible, he can no longer
> think thoroughly because his neurons is already old and
> fixated.
>
> Z

I have no problem with the relativity of mass, with the fact that
different observers will record different masses for the same object.
I totally get it. What I don't get is something else. Allow me to
sharpen my question.

Mass and energy are said to be equivalent, with the conversion factor
c^2 between them. Now in what sense are they equivalent? I will give
an example, and tell me if I'm getting it right.

Dollars and Shekels are equivalent. Let's say the exchange rate is 4
Shekels to a Dollar. This exchange rate here is analogous to the c^2.
Let's say you have 1000 dollars. You can convert them to 4000 shekels.
Then you'll have no Dollars, but you'll have 4000 Shekels. You can
convert part of them, let's say half, and then you'll have 500 Dollars
and 2000 Shekels.
So we have the law of Dollar-Shekel equivalence. And there is also
conservation of Dollar-Shekel. If you have a closed system, and you
don't add or take away Dollars or Shekels from it, then the following
amount will be conserved:
Dollars+4*Shekels


Did I get the analogy right up to this point? I understand that it's
not perfect, because you might not be able to turn all your mass into
energy. But aside for that, is the analogy correct?