Nedcim

It is not wrong to say a that sequence diverges to infinity only quicker to label it as divergent.

There is no question of the empirical evidence and practical applications in mass energy equivalence at the particle level. No. That does not mean that the practical applications occur throughout all physical spatial scales. Yes. Very interesting. Newton's second Law does not apply in the only scenarios where mass energy equivalence has been observed. True at least for the now.

Obviously, in mass energy equivalence. A mass change is expected to occur in chemical reactions, but until it is proven with measured quantities, it's just theoretical principle . Do you really need to ask the relevancy for something that may or may not happen? Strict conditions How large of an energy change? Until direct measured quantities of mass change are recorded from mechanical waves, it is only a theoretical principle so why make that assumption? Maybe mass energy equivalence occurs only during strict conditions. An earlier post just gave two examples.

If you disagree then explicitly state why but don't ask vague questions.

Ok, so It's only the mass change that is involved. Nevertheless, there are only certain conditions where any measurable conversion is going to take place Nuclear fission requires high speed neutrons. Nuclear fusion requires extremely high temperature environment.The mass change involved in energy flowing through medium would undetectable. Since the first one is measurable it is particularly interesting, but strange things happen at the atomic scale.

Isn't Einstein's Mass-Energy equivalence purely theoretical until certain conditions such as object traveling at least 10% of c? Gravity waves meet that condition. The 100% conversion of mass to energy or energy to mass.

Explain the inconsistencies stated by studiot, why do the noted 'streamlines' behave unlike typical streamlines? Explain how book's fact checkers could make such a big error in something so basic? Explain the odds that another source would make the same mistake? http://images.slideplayer.com/39/10965492/slides/slide_23.jpg

OP asked a simplistic question; I gave a simplistic answer. Overcomplicating can be problematic. I don't think those are streamlines but rather a limited version called flow path.

Einstein's Mass-Energy is equivalence is applicable in only two special cases. Yes, the total energy for entire wave would be constant but those values would vary at a set point. A similar example would be a charge flowing through a medium. However, in that case the flow of electrons would contribute to added mass.

Yes, the medium in which the wave propagates through will certainly have a mass but not the manifestation of wave motion. An object in wave motion will have a mass equal to difference between the mass gained by wave motion minus the undisturbed mass of the medium. Localized motion. If you hear a sound the air molecules vibrate at the source with localized motion but they don't travel to you ear only the energy does. By definition a wave motion transfers no matter hence no mass.

Fair enough.You're entitled to label any collective group as having a 'very limited bandwidth' on a subject. I wholly disagree with your generalized statement shown above. If an aeronautical engineer sees your comment perhaps they'll share their thoughts. Until then let's see what Dr. Colin Caprani (Ceng.) "Fluid Mechanics 2nd Year Civil and Structural Engineering" notes about the characteristics of laminar flow: That seems very similar to the earlier definition. Surely, you don't disagree with the distinguished author?

The OP mentioned about fluid tumbling which is visual reference not based on a mathematical equation. For a visual reference there is generally three cases. Then why did you mention it? I said said churn i.e. to mix up, swirl etc. I said eddies not vortices. Again not by the basic definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow#cite_note-3 Thanks for the welcome. I found a slightly different photo that gives the same basic explanation.

The wave medium has oscillatory motion that effectively results in the matter having no net displacement. As you said there is no translation of the center of mass, so the matter is not being moved only the energy. Because of the oscillatory motion there is a time each cycle when the wave has no mass.

Anything that moves in a wave motion (e.g. a rope, steel chain, water etc.) would be considered massless. A wave moves energy but not matter.

Only mathematically not visually. The basic definition of laminar flow notes no mixing or churning which is quite different from described by the OP. Why introduce additional factors? This seems to be a simplistic case based on one visual cue. If we are to select from laminar, turbulent or even transition region then turbulent seems to be the best choice. This is the situation I thought the OP described.

Turbulence