Matter and Energy

[ME]

ugh..
Do temporary energy conversions into (matter) [oops, I meant:] mass actually really matter?
This all would require a measurement of at least the local gravitational field, in a dark environment where no radio is allowed, where it matters if we do things on a hardwood floor or a granite one. There may be no additional stresses, temperature shifts, sounds or any other kind of vibration in the surrounding material.... for a machine specifically designed to violently move all kinds of masses around.
Even when some energy is somehow converted to a tiny amount of mass on a quantum mechanical scale, I guess such will be at the cost of spring-tension (potential). Which eventually will be lost to the environment in the form of heat.

We call such events 'friction': a loss of energy.

[eccentrically1]

I guess someone needs to edit the wiki entry for the mass-energy equivalence principle. Einstein was a fool!

Suppose we have a coil spring, a bolt, a nut, a couple washers, and a weight scale.

The spring needs to be rather large and the scale needs to be very sensitive. We pass the bolt through the center of the spring and using the washers and the nut, we fix the bolt so it barely starts to tension the spring.

We weigh the spring/bolt assembly very carefully. Then we compress the spring to its maximum. And again weight the assembly.

Do you really think the compressed assembly will weight more than when uncompressed?

It takes special equipment to measure the changes we're talking about here. Not weight scales.

http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.com/2009 ... -than.html

So if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / c² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.

I doubt anyone we know has a set of scales that sensitive. That's why we use classical physics formulas for most measurements and modern (post -newtonian) physics formulas for quantum and relativistic measurements at small scales (atoms) and fast velocities (light).

[preoccupied]

Jim_Mich I think the spinning flywheel falling slower from gravity is possibly caused by it hovering. Gravity pulls objects faster the longer it pulls on them, but if the spinning fly wheel briefly hovers even for an instant at a time, it might restart the gravity acceleration process. I used to be acrobatic, when I was very young and I could do flips and spin fast. I could jump off of the roofs of houses and spin fast with my arms out to the side. Holding my arms out straight like a helicopter I could drop my arms to my sides and land like a pole on the ground spinning and I would not feel much impact. I didn't think anything of it at the time but I was likely lightening my fall by spinning and decreasing the length of my arms/levers that were spinning before I hit the ground.

I think that I dropped to no reputation by having a good opinion of you Jim_Mich. You are just victimized here by politics being put into the posts over and over again. There is excess misinformation being posted about you repeatedly which is the nature of politics, and it ignores facts and it's likely confusing people's opinion about you. Nothing that's being said about you would hold up to someone that cared about the facts. If these were crimes, you would be innocent and they would be in jail.

[ME]

Unfortunately (as often) we're sliding off-topic....
Anyway, are there any resources about slow falling flywheels? Couldn't it just be drag? As in, laminar flow around a flywheel is pushed outwards and (I don't know) causing an air vortex above such flywheel causing a lower pressure causing a lift-component - at least more when compared to a non-spinning object.

Preoccupied, I think we can just agree or disagree with Jim on a per-item basis - which should actually be the reason of discussion-forum - For what it's worth, I think for all practical purposes Jim makes valid points here. (Such remark could cost me a dot too...)

[ovyyus]

I guess someone needs to edit the wiki entry for the mass-energy equivalence principle.

Is the wiki entry wrong? Does compressing a spring increase its mass?

[eccentrically1]

No, it's not wrong. Jim-mich is wrong. Sarcasm font on my post you quoted.

To reiterate, any system that has energy of any form added to it, must also increase its mass according to e= mc2.
The mass doesn't increase by a noticeable amount to the naked eye until the joules added are closer to c2. Which is a big number.

[Furcurequs]

Such foolishness here.

Thanks for the warning.

Sorry, but energy is not mass. Energy does not have weight. A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more, not even an immeasurably small amount more.

Wow, I thought I had a problem with falling asleep in class. It seems you might have been asleep throughout the entire last century.

Did you miss that Einstein stuff? ...and relativity and the confirmation of the bending of light rays passing through a gravitational field? ...and the atomic age? ...even with that E=mc^2 thing?

Wow, wow, wow.

I'm sorry you are having problems, jim_mich. ...but that doesn't make your nonsense true.

I wrote this earlier, but decided not to post it. But now I will post...

Maybe you should have looked up the word "immeasurable" before posting it. ...for the following argument is, of course, in agreement with the statement that the extra mass would be immeasurably small.

-----

Does Energy have Weight?

From some of the comments here, it seems some people think energy might have weight. In this case "weight" is equivalent to "mass". Weight-mass is usually measured by using a weight scale, which measures the gravity force experienced by the weight-mass.

Suppose we have a coil spring, a bolt, a nut, a couple washers, and a weight scale.

The spring needs to be rather large and the scale needs to be very sensitive. We pass the bolt through the center of the spring and using the washers and the nut, we fix the bolt so it barely starts to tension the spring.

We weigh the spring/bolt assembly very carefully. Then we compress the spring to its maximum. And again weight the assembly.

Do you really think the compressed assembly will weight more than when uncompressed?

Lets try another experiment. Take a sealed battery. Maybe a simple D-cell battery. Or a lithium-ion cell-phone battery fully charged. Again, carefully weigh the battery. Then discharge the battery, say thru a light bulb. Again carefully weigh the battery.

Do you really think that a battery with greater electric potential will weigh more than when discharged? Sure, there is chemical changes going on inside the battery. But a lithium-ion battery is sealed. So the mass of the battery can't change. Except if internal energy has weight. Which I seriously doubt.

Another experiment which would require a special setup. Place a very large flywheel on a platform scale. Place an enclosure around the flywheel so as to prevent air currents. Attach an electric motor to the flywheel. Measure the weight. Then spin the flywheel up as fast as possible. And again measure the weight.

Do you really think adding energy to a flywheel will cause its weight to increase?

Not to a measurable degree using our normal means of measuring such things, of course.

Side note:
There is evidence that a spinning flywheel (an electric motor), when dropped, will fall slower, which some might think would indicate that its weight becomes less. But a light rock and a heavy rock fall at a same speed, which debunks such a concept. The spinning motor drop experiment has never been explained by science. I have my own thoughts on this.

What evidence might that be? The only such claim (or similar?) I've ever seen was made by someone in the "free energy" community - which unfortunately doesn't lend it much credibility due to all the, well, "foolishness" in said community (...not to mention ignorance, delusion and perhaps a typical lack of rigor in experimental tests).

[preoccupied]

Einsteins theory of relativity is based on the Universal speed limit of light. I think that this might either be a lucky guess or something that we will find out in the future to be incorrect. Sometimes there are multiple answers to the same question that fit the data. We don't have all of the data. Nobody has traveled in a space ship fast enough to time dilate significantly. According to relativity if a space ship were to try to travel faster than light, its mass would increase infinitely before it is able to surpass the speed. Am I right? That just sounds silly. Can a fast object take up all of the space in the Universe? I think there will be something clever in the future that will be discovered that silences all advanced physics of today. So by making the assumption that immeasurable measurements can be measured with theories you would be betting against a new discovery proving you wrong.

The Real Meaning of E=mc² | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0

[ME]

I still think Jim is correct... in a Newtonian/practical sense.

When a spring is collapsed then potential energy has been put into a spring.
It requires a constant force to keep it in such state. We could tie it down by wire, put it between two layers of something.
Basically a compressed spring adds stress to its direct environment, while it doesn't go anywhere.
That's potential energy, it has the potential to move... yet it doesn't.
Until the conditions of the environment changes and potential can be released (cutting a wire for example).
All very Newtonian.

When a spring is collapsed then potential energy has been put into the spring.
It requires a reshaping of such form, a reshaping of a molecular grid which makes the spring-material a solid one.
The added stress to such molecular grid needs to come from somewhere, and eats a bit of the potential energy, the spring will collapse slightly less while material is under tension.
Reshaping a grid also causes misalignment, it has to 'decide' which stuff is closer this time - perhaps it can find a new place to bond, perhaps it can't - at least it moves and vibrates (kinetic energy). Some nearby air molecules start to vibrate along and pass it to other air molecules: heat perhaps sound is produced. Or because of all those molecular dynamics it could also be that electrons are knocked out of the system, perhaps photons or ions are produced... etc.
Anyway, atoms under stress (orbital-stress and thus nuclear-stress) push back... just like a spring: it's is potential energy, a stationary effect on the environment. But matter is not created here.

--

As I now reach almost the end of what I know, I'll just continue with my guess that is only logical that at such atomic/quantum-levels the effects are not only directional as like a reaction force, but also a tensor in space-time - energy still goes (needs to go) at its fastest speed possible, even when it's potential energy.

Perhaps that solution can simply be found when looking at Newtons law of gravity (F=Gmm/r²).
When a force is applied and the atom successfully resists reshaping (perhaps it's an effect of the bonding energy of the nucleus), then the only thing that could change is its mass component - but only as an added temporary potential effect on the environment.
(At least this what I meant by "cooled down energy")
Perhaps incorrect, but that's how I look at it.

I don't think such mass-effect could be more beneficial for any system compared to the equal loss in spring-potential... and I also don't think mass can be continuously pumped into a pogo-stick.
Perhaps "added mass" could be technically correct and interesting, but in the end it's unused spring potential and eventually gone; we just call it "friction".

Now please stop bashing Jim !!

[Furcurequs]

Einsteins theory of relativity is based on the Universal speed limit of light. I think that this might either be a lucky guess or something that we will find out in the future to be incorrect. Sometimes there are multiple answers to the same question that fit the data. We don't have all of the data. Nobody has traveled in a space ship fast enough to time dilate significantly. According to relativity if a space ship were to try to travel faster than light, its mass would increase infinitely before it is able to surpass the speed. Am I right? That just sounds silly. Can a fast object take up all of the space in the Universe? I think there will be something clever in the future that will be discovered that silences all advanced physics of today. So by making the assumption that immeasurable measurements can be measured with theories you would be betting against a new discovery proving you wrong.

The Real Meaning of E=mc² | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0

Somewhere around 2 minutes into that video, the fellow speaks of the mass associated with the potential energy in the wound up spring of a watch - amongst some other things.

[ovyyus]

I still think Jim is correct... in a Newtonian/practical sense.

So the wiki entry is right in theory, but wrong in practice?

[ME]

Not right or wrong, it's an opinion on usability.
When you collapse a spring by let's say a string (not counting some moving mass on the other side), the weight displacement of such wire would be more than some spring mass would increase. While such induced mass would be statistically centered around the center of mass of the spring, it's effect would be almost non-existent for something at a distance outside the spring.
This all, and in practice we don't even weigh that string unless we do things enormously accurate in some sterile laboratory.
It starts to make some sense when such wire weighs more than (let's say) 1/1000 maybe even 1/10,000 of the weight of the system it acts on...
Just not practical, usable or measurable for garage/workbench kind of builds where friction is all over the place, and at least accuracy of the used material spoils all this fun.

[eccentrically1]

So the wiki entry is right in theory, but wrong in practice?

Not right or wrong, it's an opinion on usability.

The entry is correct in theory and practice. It's not an opinion of any sort. The proofs have been done on planetary scales, where the principle is more easily seen. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[ME]

It's neither an issue of believe either. It's just not practical.

But in case you're going to try: good luck building your planetary-size perpetual motion machine.
I just guess you'll find some other practical issues, where generated mass will be the least of your problems, and thus still not useful.

Perhaps I missed something, and I'm open for suggestions where such occurrence could be beneficial for a home-made perpetual motion wheel.

[eccentrically1]

No, it's not an issue of belief. It's a fact. I'm just saying if you can't take my word for it, do your own research.

No, it's not practical, I agree.

I'm not suggesting a planetary sized machine is the answer. I'm saying that is the scale that is easier to measure to show energy mass equivalence.

The issues aren't mine. They are just the way things are.

You didn't miss anything, like I said earlier, a spring can't compress and uncompress itself, providing a basis for a perpetual motion.