>Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an elevated energy level. Do you believe that the atom does not have additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state? The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system.
And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor. What is the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen. < Momentum's conserved so energy rises with orbital radius,and a corresponding mass increase is expected - the actual form of this particular "PE" is KE. But PE could depend on something as abstract as an entropy change. "Potential" = conditional, not yet manifest. The difference between nuclear and chemical PE would be the distinction between relativistic and rest mass - and the very fact they're contextual underlines my point; a chemical reaction doesn't have nuclear PE and vice versa. PE is subjective, context-dependent. >Here that same arguement applies as before. Except that several electron lower energy states exist instead of just one.< ...and so when a system's PE is indeterminate, any corresponding relativistic mass increase must be in a superposition until it collapses into a definite state..!? A given reaction might unleash 2 or 3 ev, but prior to an outcome we'd have to assign a mass range rather than a definite weight? This is what i have trouble with.. If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my lap. Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, so does that PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around? On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s) > ... > >For instance, i dig a 1 meter-deep hole next to a 1 kg mass, at 1 G the > system now has 9.81 J of PE. But is there a relativistic mass increase (i > don't care how small it'd be - multiply the scale if you wish)?< > > Your example is similar to what happens when an electron is located at an > elevated energy level. Do you believe that the atom does not have > additional mass when compared to one that is in the lowest energy state? > The energy that is going to be radiated must come from somewhere and I > believe it shows up as a mass increase of the atomic system. > > >Similarly, a vertical wheel is balanced on a hilltop, with an unequal > drop on either side, so the system's PE is indeterminate - could > relativistic mass also be indeterminate?< > > Here that same arguement applies as before. Except that several > electron lower energy states exist instead of just one. > > >But assuming our EM craft was battery powered, and that relativistic mass > does apply to chemical PE, it is still the chemical PE that has been > converted to work (acceleration of the craft, relative to its point of > origin), not its relativistic mass energy equivalency, which itself is > incidental, aside from a minute reduction in the craft's net inertia.< > > And when the battery is recharged by the use of regenerative braking, mass > is returned that is equal to the mass lost in driving the motor. What is > the source of chemical energy if not due to stored potential energy of > electrons? E=M*c*c appears to apply in every case that I have seen. > > >A nuclear power plant would match your description though - the gain in > net KE (vehicle plus ejecta, where applicable) would be equal to the mass > deficit.<... > > I consider nuclear energy as being analogous to electron orbital energy. > The force keeping the nucleus together performs the same function and in > that case everyone seems to accept that this store of potential > energy results in a nuclear mass decrease as fission takes place. Nothing > but a tradeoff between potential energy and other forms. How is that > process completely different from PE stored by electrons in orbit? > Dave >
