IntLibber wrote:Well it stands to reason that if you charge something up its going to have a lot more electrons in it, and electrons do have atomic mass. Not much, but when it comes to expressing kinetic energy its the velocity that matters, and if you alter the charge back and forth you are going to see some mass occillations. There is also another issue with the charge spin orientation. Normally atoms are oriented in random directions, however its possible to use EM energy to cause them to orient in a specific direction.
Well yes and no. Maxwell's equations account for 1/2 the inertia of a given mass.
And one of my correspondents who keeps an eye on this
place sent me this:
http://calphysics.org/sci_articles.html
With papers like this:
Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch & Jules Mollere, in Amer. Inst. Physics Conf. Proc., Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), Ed. Mohamed S. El-Genk, pp. 922 - 931, gr-qc/0209016 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016v1.pdf
==
Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
L. J. Nickisch & Jules Molere, preprint physics/0205086 (2002).
===
Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis
http://calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
===
What amazes me is that so many who are presumed experts in physics dismiss this whole line of thought. I don't get it.