Just to clarify that further, if the mass of something depended on it's energy, and if that includes potential energy then anything that provides potential energy to other objects increases the potential of every object that could fall into this potential field at any at any point.
And since some potential fields can be established and later removed such as a magnetic field then the mass of energything in the universe that could be effected by a magnetic field would be increased the moment it is turned on, and not when turned off. And if you had a gravitational source that could be established and disestablished this should increase the potential energy and hence mass of everything that is effected by gravity, including light (in as much as light has mass of a sorts). Rather than magnetisms limited range of effects. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:12 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, so a charged battery is more massive than a discharged battery... > > A bowling ball on a shelf is more massive than the same bowling ball on > the ground (greater potential energy). > > A spring compressed or stretched is more massive than one under no tension. > > I was wondering as I typed the previous email if this would be the reply, > it isn't an angle of e=mc2 I have heard of but it sounds plausible that > energy has mass. > > This creates a problem though, the mass of everything in the universe is > then logically effected by all other masses, electric and magnetic fields > and other potential sources of energy! > > So a new galaxy is born and suddenly all mass in the universe has too. > Not sure that makes sense, but it does make for some interesting scifi! > > John > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:20 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> "Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not >> seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a >> different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring >> uncompressed." >> >> Actually the spring is supposed to have a greater amount of rest mass >> when compressed. E=MC*C can be used to calculate the tiny additional mass >> due to the added energy. >> >> The example you have chosen is too difficult to analyze without a great >> deal of time. Perhaps someone else wants to give it a try. If your >> example depends upon the spring not gaining mass with added energy then it >> does not function the way you suspect. >> >> I am not aware of any method of storing energy that does not result in >> an increase in the rest mass of the storage device. For example, heating a >> frying pan makes it more massive. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:57 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >> >> First off I believe that Newtons laws break down with regular >> engineering, there are multiple mechanical devices that do genuinely appear >> to create a net thrust. >> >> However these can not be proven from conjecture, they must be >> accurately replicated to maybe prove they work, and disproof may barely be >> possible due to subtle factors being potentially at work. >> >> Nevertheless, here is a reaction-less thruster that is capable of being >> mathematically proven or disproven. >> >> Take 2 identical flywheels spinning in opposite directions, these are >> rotating so far so as to have a useful increase in relativistic mass. >> >> Throw it from the front of your spaceship to the back, as it is moving >> to the rear of the ship they stop rotating, store the energy and now once >> they are not rotating they compress a spring at the other end of the ship. >> >> Because the relativistic mass is less when they are being stopped, you >> can gain net momentum, additionally you can move then back to the front of >> the ship and one there spin them up again and throw them aft repeatedly. >> >> So if the relativistic mass increase is not considered real, then what >> is stopping us from accelerating mass beyond light speed if the resistance >> to acceleration is unchanged? >> >> Another idea based on the same concept, some forms of energy do not >> seem to contribute to rest mass, I doubt a compressed spring would have a >> different rest mass due to it's energy storage than the same spring >> uncompressed. >> >> So if we can store energy in a way that has no mass, then we can also >> then turn that energy into mass, for instance the particle products of a >> proton-proton collision can be much greater than the mass of the 2 protons. >> >> So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will >> then we can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when >> it comes to a stop. >> >> Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed? >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The fact that energy can be extracted from the battery to drive the >>> microwave source is certainly possible. No one will ague against that >>> point. The problem is that this energy can be depleted without having >>> anything to show for its loss. If taken to the extreme most of the ship >>> can be converted into energy by some nuclear process to supply power for >>> the drive mechanism. >>> >>> After the drive is shut down the ship stops accelerating and comes to >>> rest in space. Even though the new velocity is different than the old one >>> before the drive operates, a guy onboard the ship can not determine that he >>> is moving. He will not have any kinetic energy relative to himself. He >>> sees that his ships mass has depleted but has nothing to show where it >>> went. With a normal drive the guy can see the exhaust that is moving >>> relative to him which contains all of the converted energy. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply. >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the >>>> obvious problems to offer their input. >>> >>> >>> One thought here -- the "reactionless drive" that I am aware of being >>> in the recent news is the EmDrive. That one involves the generation of >>> microwaves and their reflection in a cavity. It's not clear whether anyone >>> other than Nasa and the inventor believe that it works as advertised. But >>> if it does, note that energy must be expended to generate the microwaves, >>> e.g., by a battery, to which the usual E=mc^2 conversion will apply. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
