Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
From: David McAnally (D.McAnally_at_i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au)
Date: 06/04/04
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Next in thread: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Reply: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Jun 2004 09:13:52 GMT
leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:
>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9n0dp$jin$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>> Leonard Pardin wrote:
>> > Hell, I can find Einstein's derivation. Below is Einstein's
>> > derivation as summarized at the website:
>> >
>> > http://dbserv.ihep.su/hist/owa/hw.move?s_c=EINSTEIN+1905B&m=2
>>
>> Thanks for providing a link to this.
>>
>> And now, would you also please provide a reference for Poincare's
>> derivation?
> Can't seem to locate it right now. Maybe if you Relativists
>would stop burying his work under that Einstein publicity show, we
>might find Poincare's work somewhere in the internet.
Relativists do not bury the work of Poincare. Poincare is well-known
as a scientist. Stop spreading slanders.
>> > Einstein seems to be saying just what you said: mass/energy in one
>> > frame appears to be reduced in another frame.
>>
>> Err, John said that the *force* is reduced in another frame, not the energy.
>>
> Oops, again. Sorry about that. But Einstein does claim that if an
>observer in a moving frame perceives a mass/energy reduction in an
>object located in an entirely different stationary frame, then the
>perception must also apply to the stationary frame.
The mass is an invariant. This means that the mass is the same relative
to ALL inertial frames of reference. So a decrease of mass relative to
one frame is a decrease in mass relative to all frames.
>> > But isn't that just an
>> > apparent reduction and not a real one?
>>
>> Depends on what exactly you mean by "apparent" and "real". ;-)
>>
>> This reduction will be measured by *any* possible experiment. That's
>> about as real as one can get!
> According to Einstein's setup, the reduction could not be measured
>in any experiment in the stationary frame where the radiating object
>was actually located;
That was not what Einstein wrote, Just because he didn't provide such an
experiment does not mean that one could not be provided. Without further
evidence, you have made an unjustified leap in logic.
>only in the frame travelling past and looking
>into the stationary frame.
> Read the following carefully. Einstein is saying that if an object
>located in a stationary frame radiates energy, it will appear to an
>observer in another moving frame that the object is losing mass. And
>therefore, the body must be actually losing mass. As a knowledgeable
>physicist, you tell me--is that true?
Mass is an invariant. It is the same in ALL frames of reference.
David
trilogy, n., a series of three related literary works,
five if written by Douglas Adams.
-----
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!"
- Previous message: David McAnally: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- In reply to: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Next in thread: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Reply: Leonard Pardin: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
