For the physicists in the house.

For the physicists in the house. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aswad -> For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 6:09:38 AM)
Is, by mass-energy equivalence, the thermal energy of an object part of its effective gravitational mass? Or, phrased differently, does the gravitation of an object depend in part on its heat? The intuitive answer seems to be yes, but IANAP. IWYW, — Aswad.

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 6:40:41 AM)
Raising the energy of an object increases it's mass far as I know... What you making, a bomb? -Aries

needlesandpins -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 6:58:45 AM)
wouldn't it depend on the substance? while in theory it does i don't know that you'd be able to actually know for sure without ultra sensitive scales. are you also taking pressure into consideration? needles

JstAnotherSub -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 7:00:17 AM)
The answer is purple... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [image]http://a.tgcdn.net/images/products/additional/large/e5a4_bazinga_hoodie.jpg[/image]

Aswad -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 7:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ARIES83 Raising the energy of an object increases it's mass far as I know... That's why I say the intuitive answer is "yes". It would seem to be correct, based on how an object will lose energy through radiative cooling and thus end up with less equivalent mass, which in turn should result in lower gavitation, but as we know, not all things in physics are intuitive from the armchair (which is where I'm at when it comes to physics, of course). quote: What you making, a bomb? Nah, I haven't made a bomb in years. Fun to explore (I shan't say "play with", which you shouldn't do), but not very challenging if you're sticking to what won't get your local DHS equivalent to pay you a visit, and to me not fun enough to merit the expense of making a large one properly. I guess I might play with a home made mortar at some point, but I doubt I will fashion explosive shells for one. So, no, not a bomb. Just curious, really. It seems to be an inescapable implication of mass/energy equivalence. IWYW, — Aswad.

Musicmystery -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 7:31:40 AM)
quote: does the gravitation of an object depend in part on its heat? So getting hot and getting heavy are the same?

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 7:34:07 AM)
So no WMDs, then why the physics stuff?

InnerExtrovert -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:00:20 AM)
Only matter has mass. Energy has the potential to be converted to matter. The problem in using mathematical equivalency to express the relationship between mass and energy is that it conveys a sense of simultaneous existence. Time exists in the physical world, but not as a property of equality. Hey, I know! Let's get out some weighted nipple clamps, burner, and the Cavendish Torsion Balance and do an experiment.

Rule -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:14:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InnerExtrovert Only matter has mass. Energy has the potential to be converted to matter. The problem in using mathematical equivalency to express the relationship between mass and energy is that it conveys a sense of simultaneous existence. Time exists in the physical world, but not as a property of equality. I deem this the correct answer. Random energy will have no significant effect on matter.

Aswad -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:26:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So getting hot and getting heavy are the same? Hot implies temperature, which is porportional to heat, but not the same as heat. Apart from that, such seems to be the case, to my ignorance. quote: ORIGINAL: ARIES83 So no WMDs, then why the physics stuff? Because I'm curious. I'm like that. IWYW, — Aswad. Edited because I can't post two messages by the time I'm done editing. Sigh.

MrRodgers -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InnerExtrovert Only matter has mass. Energy has the potential to be converted to matter. The problem in using mathematical equivalency to express the relationship between mass and energy is that it conveys a sense of simultaneous existence. Time exists in the physical world, but not as a property of equality. Hey, I know! Let's get out some weighted nipple clamps, burner, and the Cavendish Torsion Balance and do an experiment. I thought Cavendish was scotch whiskey. Must have been the party last night. I have always thought that one must convert mass into energy and thus the more energy, the less mass and thus...the less gravitational pull.

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: InnerExtrovert Only matter has mass. Energy has the potential to be converted to matter. The problem in using mathematical equivalency to express the relationship between mass and energy is that it conveys a sense of simultaneous existence. Time exists in the physical world, but not as a property of equality. I deem this the correct answer. Random energy will have no significant effect on matter. All energy has mass, look it up.

Aswad -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:36:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InnerExtrovert Hey, I know! Let's get out some weighted nipple clamps, burner, and the Cavendish Torsion Balance and do an experiment. If you're offering up your own nipples, I'm game. If you want to singe mine, I'm not. [:D] Now, as for the equivalence, I was under the impression that a moving object has an effective mass that is porportional to the speed of its movement. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate a correction. If it's actually correct, I fail to see how this wouldn't also be the case for the thermal motion within the object, and would also appreciate being shown how that isn't so (random movements leading to a net zero contribution?). IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:46:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ARIES83 All energy has mass I have a better idea: I will tell that to this photon here. "Hey photon! Stop! Circle me! You have got mass, don't you know? Aries says so." Damn them hurrying buffalo's! That photon did not stop! It just ignored me and kept on going at lightspeed. Helmsman, accelerate to warp 1. We have got to catch up with that photon so that we can berate it for its obstinate behavior! Engage!"

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 8:55:30 AM)
photons have relativistic mass proportional their momentum rule...

Rule -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 9:03:25 AM)
Let me guess: Relativistic mass is not actual mass, is it? Isn't relativism built on the false premise that the dimension of time ought to be regarded as a dimension of space? Just to be obstinate, I declare: There is no such thing as relativistic mass. (Henceforth to be known as the Law of Rule.) Aswad, your heretical line of inquiry may cause you to be defenestrated.

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 9:10:14 AM)
You'd have to ask Einstein.

Rule -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 9:23:09 AM)
Einstein is a photon? [:-]

ARIES83 -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 9:31:04 AM)
If your talking to photons, ask him why he's effected by gravity. Then tell Aswad, might help his question.

Hillwilliam -> RE: For the physicists in the house. (1/1/2013 9:41:46 AM)
Photons do have mass. I can think of 2 good proofs. 1 is "Gravitational lensing" where light is actuallr bent around a massive object. This can be explained by the flight of a photon being bent by gravity. As gravity only affects massive objects, a photon must have mass. "Photonic pressure" also shows they have mass. Photons impinging on an object will push that object by imparting their inertia to that object. A photon's mass is tiny but anything travelling at light speed packs a punch out of proportion to its mass. Back to the OP. Maybe I mistunderstand you but the thermal energy of an object in my definition is the heat contained in that object. heat is an artifact of atomic/molecular vibration. This doesn't add to the mass. An object at 1 Mil K or more will have the same mass as that object at 0 Absolute.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875