New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: "Pmb" <peter.m.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:21:52 -0400
Hi folks
A new version of the FAQ "Does mass increase with speed?" was written and is
now online at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
This is a well written article on this whole relativistic mass thing. The
author makes a great point
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common argument against the use of relativistic mass is the fact that the
equation E=mc^2 says that a body's relativistic mass equals its total
energy, so why should we use two terms for what is essentially the same
quantity? We
should just stay with energy, and use the word "mass" to refer only to rest
mass. But this argument neglects the definitions of the words mass and
energy. Mass is a property of a body that we have an intuitive feel for;
its definition as a resistance to acceleration is very fundamental. Energy,
on the other hand, is defined in physics in rather ad hoc ways. Neither
concept is even remotely understood by modern physics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sniff sniff. I'm getting all misty at the quality of his writing :)
To the author - Well done sir!
Best wishes
Pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Dono
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Dono
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Prev by Date: Re: Mercury's perihelion precession and the reason why GR is badly wrong
- Next by Date: Re: Mercury's perihelion precession and the reason why GR is badly wrong
- Previous by thread: Basti Newsgroup
- Next by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
