"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
The point is that the fission was not discovered because
someone thought that since E = mc-#, it must be possible
to release energy by splitting atom.
So why did you say that it is a common misconception that:
"The atomic bomb proved in a very convincing way
that mass could be converted to energy as predicted by
Einstein's E = mc-#?
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
"conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a
liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
...
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
"conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a
liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
...
On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
"conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a
liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
The basic problem is that you think that 'science' is
'automatically true' [...]
x wrote:
On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
> :that mass could be converted to energy as
> :predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
>
> I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
>
> First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
> a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
> "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a >> > liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Correct.
The basic problem is that you think that 'science' is
'automatically true' [...]
No, the problem is that you have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too incompetent to realize that:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DunningrCoKruger_effect>
Also, you have posted this twice.
x wrote:
On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
> :that mass could be converted to energy as
> :predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
>
> I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
>
> First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
> a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
> "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a >> > liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Correct.
The basic problem is that you think that 'science' is
'automatically true' [...]
No, the problem is that you have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too incompetent to realize that:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DunningrCoKruger_effect>
Also, you have posted this twice.
On 1/2/26 12:07, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
x wrote:
The basic problem is that you think that 'science' is
'automatically true' [...]
No, the problem is that you have no clue what you are talking
about, but you are too incompetent to realize that:
You appear to be afraid of being omniscient,
[...]
Also, you have posted this twice.
I was aware that I posted this twice earlier, and I do not
know if there is something wrong with some part of usenet
that makes it unable to post unless you post twice. Should
I care? Maybe or maybe not.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:1n + U-235 raA Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
. . .
:Are you claiming that the mass 3.916659E-25 kg
:is not converted to 2.78E-11 J kinetic energy?
When you start in the rest system of "1n + U-235",
its momentum is p=0. As the momentum is conserved,
the momentum of "Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n" then also is
p=0, so its kinetic Energy still is zero.
x wrote:NO!!!
On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
> :that mass could be converted to energy as
> :predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
>
> I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
>
> First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
> a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
> "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a >> > liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Correct.
Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 21:07 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
x wrote:
On 1/1/26 08:19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
> :that mass could be converted to energy as
> :predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
>
> I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
>
> First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is
> based on a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of
> energy - there's no "conversion" happening. It's like saying,
> "water can be turned into a liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Correct.NO!!!
Water is not a liquid per se.
Instead water occurs in three different states, from which only one is liquid.
Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than 'mass'.
Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
measured in kg.
Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as W=force*distance.
The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in mol.
What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually immaterial
and a form of energy.
BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
"conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a
liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Second, "E=mc^2" only applies to systems at rest. In general,
it's "E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2", where "p" is the system's momentum.
(That basically says mass is the magnitude of the four-momentum.)
Third, mass is conserved in nuclear fission. This point is often
explained incorrectly, even in otherwise solid textbooks like Grif-
fiths.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:1n + U-235 ? Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
. . .
:Are you claiming that the mass 3.916659E-25 kg
:is not converted to 2.78E-11 J kinetic energy?
When you start in the rest system of "1n + U-235",
its momentum is p=0. As the momentum is conserved,
the momentum of "Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n" then also is
p=0, so its kinetic Energy still is zero.
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
1n + U-235 raA Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
[...]
Are you claiming that the mass 3.916659E-25 kg
is not converted to 2.78E-11 J kinetic energy?
When you start in the rest system of "1n + U-235",
its momentum is p=0.
As the momentum is conserved, the momentum of "Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n"
then also is p=0, so its kinetic Energy still is zero.
Note that m = 3.089167695E-28 kg is the _lost_ mass,
it doesn't exist any more.
So where has it gone?
It is converted to E = mc-# ree 2.776404839E-11 J of _kinetic energy_. Kinetic energy is not mass. Thus "convert".
Second, "E=mc^2" only applies to systems at rest. In general,
it's "E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2", where "p" is the system's momentum.
(That basically says mass is the magnitude of the four-momentum.)
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m.
Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for all speeds of the mass.
However, the _total_ energy of a moving mass is:
E = m+|c-# = mc-# + (+|-1)mc-#
The first term mc-# is the invariant energy content of the mass m,
the second term is the kinetic energy of the mass m.
Kinetic energy is not mass!
Third, mass is conserved in nuclear fission. This point is often
explained incorrectly, even in otherwise solid textbooks like Grif-
fiths.
Could it be that you are wrong and the textbook is right? :-D
Before the fission the mass of the U-235 nucleus + 1 neutron
is: mreU = 3.919748214E-25 kg
After the fission the mass of the Ba-141 and Kr-92 nuclei + 3 neutrons
is: mree = 3.916659047E-25 kg.
So the mass isn't conserved,
m = mreU-mree= 3.089167695E-28 kg has disappeared because it is converted to kinetic energy which is not mass.
Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than 'mass'. >>
Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
measured in kg.
Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as
W=force*distance.
The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in mol. >>
What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually immaterial
and a form of energy.
BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
You are way behind the times.
As of the CGPM 2018 both the kilogram and the joule are defined
as numerical multiples of the Hz. (with defined constants in between)
So the relation between them is a numerical constant too,
Den 01.01.2026 17:19, skrev Stefan Ram:
"Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote or quoted:
:that mass could be converted to energy as
:predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#.
I resent very much that you:
1. Break threads so it is impossible to see to what you are responding.
2. Paraphrase and not quote.
I can guess that you were responding to my statement:
-a"The atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
-a that mass could be converted to energy as
-a predicted by Einstein's E = mc-#."
This statement isn't very precise, but not wrong.
So let's look at a more precise statement about
what is happening in an atomic fission bomb:
One possible fission process is:
1n + U-235 raA Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
The atomic weight (mass) of these are:
Left side:
1n-a-a-a-a-a 1.008664-a u
U-235 235.0439299 u
-------------------
-a-a-a-a-a 236.0525939 u = 3.919748214E-25 kg
Right side:
Ba-141-a-a 140.914412 u
Kr-92-a-a-a-a 91.926156 u
3n-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 3.025992 u
---------------------
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 235.866560 u = 3.916659047E-25 kg
Lost mass: m = 0.1860339 u = 3.089167695E-28 kg
E = mc-# ree 2.776404839E-11 J
-a-a I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is based on
-a-a a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no >> -a-a "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a >> -a-a liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
Note that m = 3.089167695E-28 kg is the _lost_ mass,
it doesn't exist any more.
So where has it gone?
It is converted to E = mc-# ree 2.776404839E-11 J of _kinetic energy_. Kinetic energy is not mass. Thus "convert".
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Second, "E=mc^2" only applies to systems at rest. In general, >> -a-a it's "E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2", where "p" is the system's momentum.
-a-a (That basically says mass is the magnitude of the four-momentum.)
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
all speeds of the mass.
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 12:28 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than 'mass'.
Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
measured in kg.
Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as
W=force*distance.
The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in mol. >>
What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually immaterial
and a form of energy.
BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
You are way behind the times.
As of the CGPM 2018 both the kilogram and the joule are defined
as numerical multiples of the Hz. (with defined constants in between)
So the relation between them is a numerical constant too,
Well, actually I can read and I found this on the CGPM website:
"In the 14th CGPM, the SI was completed by adding mole as a base unit
for amount of substance, making the total number of base units seven."
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 12:28 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than 'mass'.
Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
measured in kg.
Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as
W=force*distance.
The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in mol. >>>>
What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually immaterial >>>> and a form of energy.
BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
You are way behind the times.
As of the CGPM 2018 both the kilogram and the joule are defined
as numerical multiples of the Hz. (with defined constants in between)
So the relation between them is a numerical constant too,
Well, actually I can read and I found this on the CGPM website:
"In the 14th CGPM, the SI was completed by adding mole as a base unit
for amount of substance, making the total number of base units seven."
You really are way behind the times, that was more than 50 years ago.
The mole is just another defined number, these days,
(and it does not have any fundamental significance)
Jan
On 01/06/2026 01:56 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 12:28 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
Energy is also something else than mass, because the term 'energy'
denotes a quantity in physics and this has a different meaning than
'mass'.
Mass is actually a measure for resistance against acceleration and
measured in kg.
Energy is derived from the quantity work, which is defined as
W=force*distance.
The units are Newtonmeter or Joule.
The quantity you erroneously call 'mass' is not measured in kg but in >>>>mol.
What you actually wanted to say, that is: matter is actually
immaterial and a form of energy.
BUT: 'the amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
You are way behind the times.
As of the CGPM 2018 both the kilogram and the joule are defined
as numerical multiples of the Hz. (with defined constants in between)
So the relation between them is a numerical constant too,
Well, actually I can read and I found this on the CGPM website:
"In the 14th CGPM, the SI was completed by adding mole as a base unit
for amount of substance, making the total number of base units seven."
You really are way behind the times, that was more than 50 years ago.
The mole is just another defined number, these days,
(and it does not have any fundamental significance)
Jan
What, you never heard of "running constants"?
People keep forgetting what makes the old they've
wrapped as new then wondering why it won't sit straight.
Therefore, the correct formula is [...] (exact)
T = T_1 + T_2 = m_1 c^2 [gamma(V_1) - 1] + m_2 c^2 [gamma(V_2) - 1],
where the V's are the velocities, and the P's are the linear momenta;
[...]
[This is a consequence of the energy--momentum relation
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2: For m != we have p = gamma m v,
and thus E = gamma m c^2.]
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m.
The first wording is simply wrong. E (better: EreC) is the *rest* energy of _an object_ whose mass is m. One can also call that the energy content _of that object_ at relative rest (as Einstein did, but this wording is obsolete), but NOT "of the mass". Mass is a quantity, not a object; a quantity has no content.
Quote out of context:m = mreU-mree= 3.089167695E-28 kg has disappeared because it is converted to >> kinetic energy which is not mass.
Again: NOT the mass is partially converted to kinetic energy, but the rest energy E_0 = m c^2 *equivalent to* the mass m.
Energy before fission:
Energy content of mass mreU: E = mreUc-# = 3.522894007E-8 J
Energy after fission:
Energy content of mass mree: E-a = mreUc-#= 3.520117602E-8 J
The difference is +oE = mreUc-# - mreUc-# = +omriac-# = 3.089167695E-28 J
Den 06.01.2026 03:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m.
The first wording is simply wrong. E (better: EreC) is the *rest*
energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m. One can also call that the energy
content _of
that object_ at relative rest (as Einstein did, but this wording is
obsolete), but NOT "of the mass". Mass is a quantity, not a object; a
quantity has no content.
You are nit-picking again!
Of course "mass" is the mass of an object.
and E = mc-# is the energy content of the mass of an object.
It is quite common to write things like:
"Let the speed of the mass m be v".
Everybody will understand that m is the mass of an object.
And so do you. So why the nit-picking ?
This is a post in a Usenet group, not a scientific paper.
Back to the subject:
The mass of an objects is invariant, and so is the energy
content of the object.
The E in the equation E = mc-# is invariant, which means
that it is independent of the speed of the object.
It makes no sense to call E = mc-# "the *rest* energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m."
The energy of a moving object with mass m is:
E = +|mc-# = mc-# + (+|-1)mc-#
The term mc-# is the invariant energy content of the object with mass m,
the term (+|-1)mc-# is the kinetic energy of the object with mass m.
The energy content E = mc-# of the object with mass m
is a property of the object with mass m.
But a frame dependent entity like kinetic energy or relative speed
is not a property of the moving object.
They are properties of the relationship between the object
and a frame of reference.
The kinetic energy which can have any value depending on
the arbitrary choice of frame of reference, is not part
of the energy content of the object.
(Note however that in the fission where the two
nuclei and 3 neutrons are moving away from each other
in such a way that momentum is conserved, the _sum_
of their kinetic energies is invariant.)
-------
Quote out of context:m = mreU-mree= 3.089167695E-28 kg has disappeared because it is converted to
kinetic energy which is not mass.
Before the fission the mass of the U-235 nucleus + 1 neutron
is: mreU = 3.919748214E-25 kg
After the fission the mass of the Ba-141 and Kr-92 nuclei +
3 neutrons is: mree = 3.916659047E-25 kg.
So the mass isn't conserved, +om = mreU-mree= 3.089167695E-28 kg
Again: NOT the mass is partially converted to kinetic energy, but the
rest
energy E_0 = m c^2 *equivalent to* the mass m.
Energy before fission:
Energy content of mass mreU: E = mreUc-# = 3.522894007E-8 J
Energy after fission:
Energy content of mass mree: E = mreUc-#= 3.520117602E-8 J
The difference is +oE = mreUc-# - mreUc-# = +omriac-# = 3.089167695E-28 J
The binding energy holding the nucleons together is
part of the energy content of the mass of the U-235 nucleus.
When the nucleus is split, the binding energy in the Ba-141
and Kr-92 nuclei will be +oE less. The sum of the kinetic energy
of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons will be +oE = 3.089167695E-28 J
I say that the mass +om lost from the U-235 nucleus is converted
to kinetic energy of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons.
You are free to choose your wording.
[snip non sense] Einstein's mass/energy equivalency
formula, a truncation of an expression.
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 20:51 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
all speeds of the mass.
You contradicted yourself!!
Here your claim is, that mass is invariant, while a little below you
claim, that energy is conserved, while mass has vanished from a
radioactive sample.
But you can't keep both claims, because they contradict each other.
Den 06.01.2026 03:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m.
The first wording is simply wrong. E (better: EreC) is the *rest* energy of >> _an object_ whose mass is m. One can also call that the energy content _of >> that object_ at relative rest (as Einstein did, but this wording is
obsolete), but NOT "of the mass". Mass is a quantity, not a object; a
quantity has no content.
You are nit-picking again!
Of course "mass" is the mass of an object.
and E = mc-# is the energy content of the mass of an object.
It is quite common to write things like:
"Let the speed of the mass m be v".
Everybody will understand that m is the mass of an object.
And so do you. So why the nit-picking ?
This is a post in a Usenet group, not a scientific paper.
The mass of an objects is invariant,
and so is the energy content of the object.
The E in the equation E = mc-# is invariant,
which means that it is independent of the speed of the object.
It makes no sense to call E = mc-# "the *rest* energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m."
The energy of a moving object with mass m is:
E = +|mc-# = mc-# + (+|-1)mc-#
The term mc-# is the invariant energy content of the object with mass m,
the term (+|-1)mc-# is the kinetic energy of the object with mass m.
The energy content E = mc-# of the object with mass m
is a property of the object with mass m.
But a frame dependent entity
like kinetic energy or relative speed is not a property of the moving object.
They are properties of the relationship between the object
and a frame of reference.
The kinetic energy which can have any value depending on
the arbitrary choice of frame of reference, is not part
of the energy content of the object.
So the mass isn't conserved, [...]
Again: NOT the mass is partially converted to kinetic energy, but the rest >> energy E_0 = m c^2 *equivalent to* the mass m.
Energy before fission:
Energy content of mass mreU: E = mreUc-# = 3.522894007E-8 J
Energy after fission:
Energy content of mass mree: E = mreUc-#= 3.520117602E-8 J
The difference is +oE = mreUc-# - mreUc-# = +omriac-# = 3.089167695E-28 J
The binding energy holding the nucleons together is
part of the energy content of the mass of the U-235 nucleus.
When the nucleus is split, the binding energy in the Ba-141
and Kr-92 nuclei will be +oE less. The sum of the kinetic energy
of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons will be +oE = 3.089167695E-28 J
I say that the mass +om lost from the U-235 nucleus is converted
to kinetic energy of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons.
You are free to choose your wording.
Den 06.01.2026 09:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 20:51 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
all speeds of the mass.
You contradicted yourself!!
Here your claim is, that mass is invariant, while a little below you
claim, that energy is conserved, while mass has vanished from a
radioactive sample.
But you can't keep both claims, because they contradict each other.
Invariant means "the same in all frames of reference"
or "independent of speed".
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:It turns out, though, that the mass of a massive particle (sic) is
Invariant means "the same in all frames of reference"
or "independent of speed".
That is what *you* mean by it *here*, NOT what it *generally* means.
What *you* mean *here* is more precisely called "_Lorentz_-invariant".
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Invariant means "the same in all frames of reference"
or "independent of speed".
That is what *you* mean by it *here*, NOT what it *generally* means.
What *you* mean *here* is more precisely called "_Lorentz_-invariant".
It turns out, though, that the mass of a massive particle (sic) is *generally* frame-invariant
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just noticed that since 2025-12-14, when the "Organization" header field
of your postings changed, you also do not have a space in there anymore.
Not including a space there may exclude your postings from being read, through real-name filters.
Den 06.01.2026 03:04, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m.
The first wording is simply wrong. E (better: EreC) is the *rest* energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m. One can also call that the energy content _of >>> that object_ at relative rest (as Einstein did, but this wording is
obsolete), but NOT "of the mass". Mass is a quantity, not a object; a
quantity has no content.
You are nit-picking again!
No, to distinguish between the concepts here is vital for a proper understanding.
Of course "mass" is the mass of an object.
and E = mc-# is the energy content of the mass of an object.
NOT E = m c-#, but EreC = m c-#, is the _energy_ of an object with mass m at relative rest, its *rest energy*.
It is quite common to write things like:
"Let the speed of the mass m be v".
Maybe in colloquial or popular-scientific (con)texts; but this is a scientific newsgroup, and it is not only good form but required to be
precise here and in this regard.
Everybody will understand that m is the mass of an object.
Irrelevant. The problem is that *you* do not understand it correctly
despite the many explanations and references that I gave (you) already.
And so do you. So why the nit-picking ?
It is not nitpicking, but requiring a clarity of expression to arrive at a proper understanding of a subject.
This is a post in a Usenet group, not a scientific paper.
This is a _scientific_ newsgroup.
The mass of an objects is invariant,
It is _Lorentz_-invariant, NOT invariant /per se/.
and so is the energy content of the object.
No.
The E in the equation E = mc-# is invariant,
This pop-cultural equation is *wrong*, as I have pointed out /ad nauseam/.
which means that it is independent of the speed of the object.
/Ex falso quodlibet./
It makes no sense to call E = mc-# "the *rest* energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m."
It *does*. That is what it *is*. "Rest energy" is the agreed physical/scientific term for that form of energy.
If there is confusion: "rest" here is not meant as in "and all the rest",
but as in "at rest", i.e. "not moving".
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass#Rest_energy>
The energy of a moving object with mass m is:
E = +|mc-# = mc-# + (+|-1)mc-#
That is the *total energy* of *any* object with mass m, including one that
is moving in the chosen rest frame (then we have +| > 1).
[The total energy also includes the potential energy, but coordinates can be chosen such that the latter is zero.]
The term mc-# is the invariant energy content of the object with mass m,
One can say that; but as I already pointed out, that wording is both
obsolete and imprecise.
the term (+|-1)mc-# is the kinetic energy of the object with mass m.
If the potential energy is zero.
The energy content E = mc-# of the object with mass m
is a property of the object with mass m.
*No, it is the other way around*: The mass m of an object is a measure of
its rest energy or, as Einstein wrote in "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" its "energy content" -- by which he meant "its energy content _at relative rest_":
,-<https://web.archive.org/web/20240708111817/https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/188>
|
| [...], we are led to the more general conclusion: The mass of a body is a
| measure of its energy content; if the energy changes by L, the mass
| changes in the same sense by L/9 * 10^20, if the energy is measured in
| ergs and the mass in grams.
[Unfortunately, since the commercialization of the Digital Einstein Papers
we are required to refer to archived versions or unofficial translations/copies :-(]
But a frame dependent entity
_quantity_, not entity
like kinetic energy or relative speed is not a property of the moving object.
Self-contradictory.
They are properties of the relationship between the object
and a frame of reference.
/Non sequitur./
The kinetic energy which can have any value depending on
the arbitrary choice of frame of reference, is not part
of the energy content of the object.
That depends on how one defines that. "Energy content" is an obsolete term to begin with.
However, if one simply substitutes "total energy" for "energy content", then the total energy of an object depends on the choice of rest frame; and the "energy content" that Einstein means is just that of an object/body (with non-zero mass) *at relative rest* -- in modern terminology, the object's/body's *rest* energy.
So the mass isn't conserved, [...]
There is no and has never been a disagreement among the two of us about that.
Again: NOT the mass is partially converted to kinetic energy, but the rest >>> energy E_0 = m c^2 *equivalent to* the mass m.
Energy before fission:
Energy content of mass mreU: E = mreUc-# = 3.522894007E-8 J
Energy after fission:
Energy content of mass mree: E = mreUc-#= 3.520117602E-8 J
The difference is +oE = mreUc-# - mreUc-# = +omriac-# = 3.089167695E-28 J
The binding energy holding the nucleons together is
part of the energy content of the mass of the U-235 nucleus.
When the nucleus is split, the binding energy in the Ba-141
and Kr-92 nuclei will be +oE less. The sum of the kinetic energy
of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons will be +oE = 3.089167695E-28 J
You keep missing the point.
I say that the mass +om lost from the U-235 nucleus is converted
to kinetic energy of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons.
Which is simply the wrong idea.
You are free to choose your wording.
No, one is NOT free to choose one's wording if one wants to participate in a fruitful scientific discussion. That is a fundamental misconception. Scientific terms have meaning, and the meaning of certain terms has been agreed upon, like total energy, rest energy, mass, kinetic energy, and potential energy.
What actually happens here is that rest energy is (partially) converted to other forms of energy. This is equivalent to a reduction in mass; precisely what Einstein wrote in his paper, and in a sense precisely what he suggested in that paper as an experimental test:
| Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose
| energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium).
Le 06/01/2026 |a 22:43, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
[snip non sense] Einstein's mass/energy equivalency
formula, a truncation of an expression.
You are the result of the truncation of sanity, Ross.
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The mass of an objects is invariant,
It is _Lorentz_-invariant, NOT invariant /per se/.
and so is the energy content of the object.
No.
The E in the equation E = mc-# is invariant,
This pop-cultural equation is *wrong*, as I have pointed out /ad nauseam/.>
which means that it is independent of the speed of the object.
/Ex falso quodlibet./
It makes no sense to call E = mc-# "the *rest* energy of
_an object_ whose mass is m."
It *does*. That is what it *is*. "Rest energy" is the agreed physical/scientific term for that form of energy.
Energy before fission:
Energy content of mass mreU: E = mreUc-# = 3.522894007E-8 J
Energy after fission:
Energy content of mass mree: E = mreUc-#= 3.520117602E-8 J
The difference is +oE = mreUc-# - mreUc-# = +omriac-# = 2.776404839E-11 J
The binding energy holding the nucleons together is
part of the energy content of the mass of the U-235 nucleus.
When the nucleus is split, the binding energy in the Ba-141
and Kr-92 nuclei will be +oE less. The sum of the kinetic energy
of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons will be +oE = 2.776404839E-11 J
You keep missing the point.
I say that the mass +om lost from the U-235 nucleus is converted
to kinetic energy of the two nuclei and 3 neutrons.
Which is simply the wrong idea.
What actually happens here is that rest energy is (partially) converted to other forms of energy. This is equivalent to a reduction in mass;
Den 06.01.2026 09:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 20:51 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
all speeds of the mass.
You contradicted yourself!!
Here your claim is, that mass is invariant, while a little below you
claim, that energy is conserved, while mass has vanished from a
radioactive sample.
But you can't keep both claims, because they contradict each other.
Invariant means "the same in all frames of reference"
or "independent of speed".
It does _not_ mean "constant".
Mass is invariant.
The mass of an object is the same in all frames of reference.
The mass of an object does not depend on the speed of the object.
But mass can change. Heat the object, and its mass will increase,
I have told you before, but I know you will not learn.
You never do.
On 1/6/2026 1:57 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 06.01.2026 09:15, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 20:51 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
E = mc-# is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
all speeds of the mass.
You contradicted yourself!!
Here your claim is, that mass is invariant, while a little below you
claim, that energy is conserved, while mass has vanished from a
radioactive sample.
But you can't keep both claims, because they contradict each other.
Invariant means "the same in all frames of reference"
or "independent of speed".
It does _not_ mean "constant".
Mass is invariant.
The mass of an object is the same in all frames of reference.
The mass of an object does not depend on the speed of the object.
But mass can change. Heat the object, and its mass will increase,
I have told you before, but I know you will not learn.
You never do.
Its odd to think of a cup of water as the water evaporates. The cup is
an object with its own mass. But, now its holding water. So, the cup "weighs" more in a sense... But, as the water evaporates, that weight
will go back to the weight of the original cup...
Think of two equal mass cups on a scale. They balance. Add water to one,
its not balanced. However, the water will evaporate and the scale shall
go back to balanced over time?
Its odd to think of a cup of water as the water evaporates. The cup is
an object with its own mass. But, now its holding water. So, the cup "weighs" more in a sense...
But, as the water evaporates, that weight will go back to the weight of
the original cup...
Think of two equal mass cups on a scale. They balance. Add water to one,
its not balanced. However, the water will evaporate and the scale shall
go back to balanced over time?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:41:10 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,203 |
| Posted today: | 1 |