Re: Is there a relativistic mass?


"xray4abc" <lemhenyil@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1190157699.686940.107770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 18, 7:01 am, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1190085960.693887.128850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1190046216.574350.6390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sep 16, 10:19 pm, "Pmb" <some...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1189989959.241306.11730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Is there a relativistic mass ?

First, please define that term as you understand it.

Pete

Maybe not!
Here is a possible scenario:

When a particle is accelerated in a force-field,
there must exist a configuration of the force-field-lines
allowing this.
As the particle moves, the field -lines are being rearranged,
with a limited speed, which is probable not more than c,
the light-speed in vacuum.
When the particle speeds up, there will be less time
for the rearranging process, and the force-field
will not be able to exert the same force as before.
In other words : the exerted force could diminish
with the increasing speed of the particle.
The highest speed of the rearrangement of the
force-field being equal with c, the exerted force
will equal zero, when the particle's speed reaches
the c value.

Conclusion:
1. Mass could be constant during acceleration and equal to the
rest
mass
2. What might vary during acceleration is the force itself
( this is perfectly consistent with Weber's force !)
3. ......other

Best regards, LL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

: - Mass of a body defined as F/a when the body
is moving in an IRF ( where F represents the value
(modulus) of the exerted action and "a" is the value
of the acceleration produced by that action)and which
is speed-dependent.

If you're claiming that relativisic mass is defined as m = F/a then
you've
redefined the term. This term has been around for nearly a century and
has a
very definite meaning, i.e. m = p/v where p is the magnitude of the
particle's momentum and v is the particle's speed.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pete !
You are disappointing me!
You are stumbling on nutshells, it appears!
YOU asked me to define mass *as I understand it* !

I never asked such a thing. You were speaking about "relativistic mass"
and
I asked you to define that term as you understand it. I wanted to know if
you created your own definition or was going by the regular textbook
definition.

That's what I did ! I do not care, in how many other
ways it can be defined! You define it however YOU like,
it's fine with me, as long as it is equivalent with the
other definitions.

The actual term for what you chose actually has two meanings. m = F/a (if
F
= force) is not unique. To understand this it takes a bit of explaining.
I
created this web page to do that for me.
Seehttp://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/long_trans_mass.htm

So as you can see, what you're speaking about is very different from the
actual textbook definition of "relativistic mass". When one is dicussing
mass it is very important to be clear on the exact definition.

Different definitions can be used for most things,
some can be convenient for one purpose some for other.
To explain, why a body can not be accelerated to
the speed of "light" , the definition I have used
is very good in my opinion.
And, besides, is not exactly a circular definition, as
Sal believes, as a force has NOT ONLY ONE effect on a body
but TWO EFFECTS at minimum.
(We are talking about real bodies, not some idealization like a
"material point" etc)
m=p/v was not of any good to make my point!
m=f/a was !
Regards, LL

Then I highly recommend that you read the link above.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HI
Some observations on your link:
1. as I said before: Why is mass explicitly dependent on time?

I don't understand why you can't understand what I keep telling you! If the
velocity changes then so does the mass. This is seem in the term gamma which
is a function of velovity. Mass changes if velocity changes. If you think
that the mass of an object should be a function of time then you're assuming
that the particle is accelerating. There is no need for a particle to be
accelerating for it to be a function of speed.

Please tell me: Why do you believe that mass should explicitly depend on
time?

The only instance that I know of, in SR, is if the particle is changing
speed, i.e. accelerating.

Pete


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light as a particle in a wave?
    ... >IF Light can display properies as both a particle and a waveform, ... >Mass characteristics? ... >different speeds in relation to the crossover point of teh oscillation? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is there a relativistic mass?
    ... As the particle moves, the field -lines are being rearranged, ... When the particle speeds up, ... Mass could be constant during acceleration and equal to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light as a particle in a wave?
    ... >IF Light can display properies as both a particle and a waveform, ... >Mass characteristics? ... >different speeds in relation to the crossover point of teh oscillation? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is there a relativistic mass?
    ... As the particle moves, the field -lines are being rearranged, ... When the particle speeds up, ... for the rearranging process, and the force-field ... Mass could be constant during acceleration and equal to the rest ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Magnetic field collapse
    ... If you have two electrodes in a vacuum, ... The other transluminal signaling theory would be to use a particle ... The mass apparently acts as if it increases at high speeds ... producing the acceleration are themselves limited ...
    (sci.physics.electromag)
Quantcast