Pleonast wrote:
Very nice explanation. Thank you berry much.
> If the heat itself has inertia the result should be the possibility of oscillation in the heat flow. Is there any such thing?
Fascinating point. There are thermal analogs to resistors and capacitors, but not to inductors as far as anybody knows. From this point of view, heat differs from other dynamic agencies such as electricity and fluid flow and vibration. So, no, you can’t build an oscillating thermal circuit with passive components only, like you can do with electronics. Note, in electronics, you can’t do it if you don’t use inductors.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing, here. Perhaps you missed that I said that mass “may appear” to be converted? It’s possible that I wasn’t as clear there as I might have been, though.
It’s funny. I specifically came back to this thread because I was worried that someone might think that I was stupid enough to contradict you. Because after thinking about it I realized that I didn’t really didn’t say anything that you hadn’t already said. I just used more words.
At various other forums I’ve heard people ask questions similar to, “what exactly is happening when mass turns into energy.” And I finally came to conclusion that I didn’t like the phrase simply because it confuses people; to me it’s sort of like “relativistic mass.”
On the other hand, I have no answer to this part of your post:
Also, a pretty well respected physicist (Matte Meron) on sci.physics once wrote:
I’d be curious as to what you think of this statement.
I forgot to add: In the momentum four-vector energy is the time component and mass is the magnitude; Given this I’ve never been able to see how mass can be considered to be just a form of energy.