Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 21, 8:21 pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Hi Pete
Here's one paragraph that sums it all up,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
There is no Internationally accepted definition
of mass, so we made one.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by Date: Re: Aether Question on Magnetic Force on Electric Charge.
- Previous by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
