Re: New version of a relativity FAQ


"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:033d6c0e-7688-4216-905e-806753059417@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 24, 8:39 am, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"dlzc" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4149ba6b-3b27-4abc-aa12-517f909986f5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Pmb:

On Jun 24, 4:09 am, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:weZ7k.1629$q03.1540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
... splice...
Look up Weyl's definition of mass. It is
consistent with how inertial mass is
defined and used in SR (and by Newton).

It is not consistent with the expectation
of the person that needs the FAQ, Pete.
It is significantly different than he/she
was taught in "high school physics".

And that makes it correct??

It makes it yet another "lie" that their physics professors told
them. How many kooks do we have here now because they accepted Newton
as the last word in physics? And don't argue (again) that that is not
what Newton said. Very few of Newton's words made it into *my* lower
level physics classes. And yes, he was dead by the time I went to
school. ;>)

Is the web page for "Pete and company"
or for education / reference purposes?

Education

Then you are willing to accept modifications to the page, enumerating
the limitations of this mathematical tool?

David A. Smith
---------------------
There are no limitations. Only misuse. The only limitations are with
regard
to other attempts at definitions of mass

The problem with the arguments in this thread
regarding mass definitions is they are based
on SR + Newton, i.e. 1915, as Mr. Koks appears
to be, which are obsolete from the start.

Not clear what you mean. I was taught physics many decades later (in the
1980's), and most examples used relativistic mass as used in the field of
particle physics. Obviously it worked very well and it wasn't obsolete at
all. ;-)

As I pointed out, the same mass definitions
needs to work for GR, Energy, QT and EM.
Actually that is rather straightforward using
the post 1983 definition of the meter,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf

I think Robert's mentioned counting substance
as a mass definition, well that's "not even
wrong", as that just shifts the problem to
Mass = number x (a smaller mass)...duh...
1 Kg = 1000 gms, and is equivalent to saying
1 gm = (big number)*(mass of a Si atom), that
may be an improvement, but it does not mean
anything, because it does not relate to our
definition of time, so next thing is defining
the mass of a Si atom, so that's circles back
to the original problem.

I'd like to also clarify,
Rest mass =/= invariant mass,
in fact
invariant mass = relativistic mass.

Oh yes indeed! But you would likely need to elaborate - it's only true
one-way. A straightforward example is temperature increase.

Cheers,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: weight = mass or force?
    ... both divide out leaving only the comparative measure of mass. ... I think Newton realized that a central force would result from ... law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an ... perfect circle and perfect motion. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • johnreed take 1C --- 2005
    ... He called the "feel" part in inertial mass. ... Newton defined inertial and gravitational mass the same, ... Newton and the apple were both being acted on by the earth attractor. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: johnreed take 1C --- 2005
    ... He called the "feel" part in inertial mass. ... Newton defined inertial and gravitational mass the same, ... an elevator on Earth in Earth's gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Q question about relativity
    ... is seeing that even light is bent according to gravitation. ... the mass of the photon is zero, so the light beam cannot be ... > bent according to Newton, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Q question about relativity
    ... is seeing that even light is bent according to gravitation. ... the mass of the photon is zero, so the light beam cannot be ... > bent according to Newton, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)