Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:15:45 -0700
Dear Pmb:
"Pmb" <peter.m.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GaSdndZG-uirT8DVnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 :)
How funny that we caution newbies not to let "intuition" and
"common sense" guide them through relativity, then we splice the
bullsh*t of a "mass" that is different to different axes of
acceleration in as having an "intuitive feel". And try and
justify it by glancingly referring to E=mc^2 (or even Newton's E
= 1/2mv^2), which is *not* where the "intuitive feel" of mass
comes from. 'Twas Mr. Koks' idea to resurrect this particular
slant.
To the author - Well done sir!
I just publish the links, I don't have to agree with them.
Personally, I feel it to be a giant step backwards. It yields
yet another arcane formulation that will stand between the newbie
and understanding, with *none* of the "intuitive feel" sought.
But hey, I am just a mechanical engineer.
And I understand you (and Don) do not agree.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: harry
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- References:
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- Prev by Date: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
- Next by Date: Re: The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
- Previous by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
