Re: Wikipedia on mass

From: Thomas Wong (nonfunctional_email_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/17/05 

Date: 16 Jan 2005 17:41:37 -0800

Pmb wrote:

> By the way Harald, bilge has never been able to explain why the world
uses
> rel-mass contrary to his claims that they don't. Whom do I speak of?
CERN!
> :-)
>
>
http://humanresources.web.cern.ch/humanresources/external/training/tech/spec
> ial/AXEL2003/AXEL-2003_L02_24Feb03pm.pdf

Peter, what you've presented is "Introduction to Accelerators," a
semi-popular presentation for trainees.

Relativistic mass simply ISN'T a commonly used term any more in the
recent scientific literature, by which I mean articles published in
refereed journals meant for professionals.

For every journal article in, say, Phys. Rev. A that you cite using the
unqualified term "mass" to mean "relativistic mass," I can cite at
least 100 that use "mass" to mean "invariant mass." And I imagine that
is an understatement...

This is a question of what constitutes CURRENT COMMON USAGE, Peter. I
refuse to argue with you concerning whether relativistic mass
constitutes a useful concept. That is not the point. The fact is that
CURRENT COMMON USAGE of the unqualified term "mass" refers to invariant
mass.

Peter, go to the library. Check for yourself. How many uses can you
find IN THE RECENT, REFEREED PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE where the
unqualified term "mass" is used to mean "relativistic mass"?

Repeat: This is NOT a matter of whether relativistic mass constitutes a
useful concept. I know what you think, and I know what Bilge thinks,
and I know what Tom Roberts thinks, and I know what Steve Carlip
thinks.

This is a question of CURRENT COMMON USAGE in the refereed professional
literature. I am not interested in internet searches; I am not
interested in introductory textbooks; I am not interested in popular
and semi-popular literature.

Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.
Check for yourself.

Tom

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are Organic Foods Really Better for You?
    ... >>>Peter Moran ... >> Of course it helps to have raised almost all vegetables and ground fruits ... They apparently didn't teach the relationship between weight and mass at the ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Test SPF4
    ... Ken and Peter have identical unit masses ... and unit second, at rest. ... so Peter's unit mass is heavier relative to Ken. ... $m$ the inertial mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Levers increase force?
    ... On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Peter wrote: ... the force that gives a mass 1000m an acceleration a/1000, are equal, ...    Can you articulate the section that is wrong, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is mass?
    ... >> Relativistic mass is a whore, comely at first, but fickle. ... So how is Peter M. Brown in his new nym to draw hate mail from Bilge these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ON THE CO-DEPENDENCE OF TIME DILATION, SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITIES, AND RELATIVISTIC MASS
    ... Time Dilation, Relativistic Mass, and c as a limit (Superluminal ... THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITIES. ... I thought it was understood as Einstein posed it --- motion is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)