Matter and Energy

[DannyBouy]

Can't be created. According to Einstein they are interchangeable.

If it were possible to change a mass by compressing it or expanding it (as the universe is), would energy change?

Thanks
Daniel

[Fcdriver]

Perpetual motion does not create energy it uses energy, gravity! In the exact same manner a wind mill uses the wind!

[DannyBouy]

"In the exact same manner a wind mill uses the wind!"

And now gravity is energy?

Thanks
Daniel

[ME]

As far as I could possibly understand:

When one mass moves away from a second 'stationary' mass with a global-speed differential (kinetic energy) closing in on its local speed (rest-mass energy) then this relation becomes relativistically a bit 'fuzzy'.
When a third mass moves parallel to the first one, then one could question the location of this 'fuzziness', which is considered not being at the point of view.

As it's actually not advisable to experiment with nuclear explosions/fissions or particle accelerators in ones basement, a good second for getting mass expansion/contraction would be controlled state-changes: From liquid to gas or vice-versa, perhaps controlled explosions (combustion), or something electrical etc.
Without entropic leakage to the environment its adiabatic energy processes are usually well known where mass just remains the same but the processes are basically exchanges in potential and kinetic energies. Perhaps there are some exceptions waiting to be discovered.

I don't think matter/energy conversions are really applicable for our stationary viewpoints relative to the local workbench.
But in case they are, you are destined to loose mass in order to extract energy.
Energy which will be used to heat-up, light-up, send-out, or vibrate all kinds of peripherals: a leaky non-recyclable process on a local scale.

[agor95]

I think NASA worked on an inertial drive that worked on that concept.

Instead of mass, think Energy Density in a volume of space.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... _final.pdf

[Tarsier79]

it uses energy, gravity! In the exact same manner a wind mill uses the wind!

Oh no, not another one. The flat-earth loonies are taking over.

Can't be created. According to Einstein they are interchangeable.

If it were possible to change a mass by compressing it or expanding it (as the universe is), would energy change?

I don't think you can change the mass of something by compressing it or expanding it. You can change its density though. If you compress something I imagine it will try to act like a spring.

[agor95]

I do not know, more gravity you have, the more wind you have got.

The lunar society were partial to prunes; I have heard.

From a very long way away.

[agor95]

The real "lunarticks" i.e. lunar society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Soc ... Birmingham

[james.lindgard]

Can't be created. According to Einstein they are interchangeable.

If it were possible to change a mass by compressing it or expanding it (as the universe is), would energy change?

Thanks
Daniel

As Einstein would say, it's all Relative. After all, if a mass expands or is compressed, then an outside force is acting on it. And conservation of momentum states that the energy in the system will remain the same.

edited to add; what affects a mass becomes a part of that system.

[WaltzCee]

I think NASA worked on an inertial drive that worked on that concept.

Johnny asked his mom if he could go to the pleiades star cluster.
His mom told him, you know spending too much time in micro-gravity will make you go blind.
So he asked, can I just go out until I need glasses?

[DannyBouy]

As far as I could possibly understand:

When one mass moves away from a second 'stationary' mass with a global-speed differential (kinetic energy) closing in on its local speed (rest-mass energy) then this relation becomes relativistically a bit 'fuzzy'.
When a third mass moves parallel to the first one, then one could question the location of this 'fuzziness', which is considered not being at the point of view.

As it's actually not advisable to experiment with nuclear explosions/fissions or particle accelerators in ones basement, a good second for getting mass expansion/contraction would be controlled state-changes: From liquid to gas or vice-versa, perhaps controlled explosions (combustion), or something electrical etc.
Without entropic leakage to the environment its adiabatic energy processes are usually well known where mass just remains the same but the processes are basically exchanges in potential and kinetic energies. Perhaps there are some exceptions waiting to be discovered.

I don't think matter/energy conversions are really applicable for our stationary viewpoints relative to the local workbench.
But in case they are, you are destined to loose mass in order to extract energy.
Energy which will be used to heat-up, light-up, send-out, or vibrate all kinds of peripherals: a leaky non-recyclable process on a local scale.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me, ME.

As it's actually not advisable to experiment with nuclear explosions/fissions or particle accelerators in ones basement

Good advice.



My thoughts are to use rotation to cause an expansion/compression from the gray/black region to the red one. As this model rotates, this change in the characteristic of the mass (specifically density) varies.

What do you think, ME?

[DannyBouy]

What do you think, Fcdriver? From what you seem to think there's a constant (mass) in the idea of F=mA. That constant is mass. I don't think mass is constant. However you suppose A can vary. I suppose m can.

What do you think, Fcdriver?

[DannyBouy]

Johnny asked his mom if he could go to the pleiades star cluster.
His mom told him, you know spending too much time in micro-gravity will make you go blind.
So he asked, can I just go out until I need glasses?

I don't know what to say.

[DannyBouy]

I don't think you can change the mass of something by compressing it or expanding it. You can change its density though. If you compress something I imagine it will try to act like a spring.

What I meant to say was "change a characteristic of a mass." Specifically the mass's density.

What do you think of that?

Thanks
Daniel

[ME]

If all goes well then mass shouldn't vary...
Perhaps a magnet can attract ferromagnetic mass, perhaps a flimsy mass can fall apart - In both those situations you either loose the potential storage, or otherwise the source-mass itself.

But what will be changed is the Moment of Inertia (MoI) with changing radius.
I guess you have something like a Hoberman sphere in mind (perhaps a 2D ring-variant). So that would be close to the MoI of a shell/hollow ball (or ring when 2D)
You could use the principle of a spinning ice-skater and lower that MoI by contracting the sphere(or ring). Because of Conservation-of-Angular-Momentum (CoAM) the Angular-velocity will rise.

The scenario will be something like this:
It needs some speed, invest some energy to contract, that thing speeds up (CoAM), looses some of it to the environment by friction, and repeat.

So it takes energy to do its thing until there's no more available space to contract, unless you have a better idea.

But this is I what I think the main difference between a macroscopic situation and the quantum situation, especially when the Tangential-velocity is not anywhere near the speed-of-light.

What do you think?

nb. it takes some time until you're able to understand WaltzCee... (he can be quite funny when you do)