Recent content by Aer

Well, you can adopt the notation of others and simply use m as rest mass and not use m0. So Wikipedia is full of a bunch of know-nothing idiots I see. I do not know the background on your little story here. Your only argument so far has been that relativistic mass makes notation easier. I...

I still stand by my claim because I have a different definition of unification than you do. My definition would most closely be defined as: the act of combining into one. Now this is still a bit vague, so let me put it into context of the unification of Relativity (for our purposes here, we'll...

The definition of momentum is p = \gamma m v where \gamma is the Lorentz factor, m is the rest mass, and v is the velocity relative to some inertial frame. pmb_phy likes to define m as relativistic mass so that \gamma m in the equation above just becomes m. Unfortunately, relativistic mass...

I am talking about QM and Relativity, not QM and 'special relativity'. Relativity is in fact 'general relativity' because 'special relativity' is nothing but a special case of 'general relativity'. Now let's be thorough here. The special relativity equations are recovered in general relativity...

I can agree to differ with the other side with the added context that the other side is just wrong. :biggrin: You are correct to say that one may use proper mass and ignore relativistic mass forever and for every situation. However, the converse is not true. One using relativistic mass cannot...

I didn't claim that it was a true definiton. You read too much into the issue of bringing up QM. And it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of those that deal with QM that invariant mass is the only useful quantity - NOT MINE. Do not try to push that claim on me as if it is my opinion. No...

OK, I should have been more thorough in what I was saying. Relativistic mass was defined as γm since it was shown that E=γmc2 and from this definition, physicists thought relativistic mass was the true mass. Now what is meant by true mass? Well that's very hard to say because of all of the...

How many times do I have to tell you this? Special Relativity does not and cannot speak directly for a compound object. In fact, the relation E0=mc2 is independent of special relativity as was proven http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0504/0504486.pdf . For a compound object, you just...

All relativists? Maybe retarded relativists... No, this thread is all about relativistic mass. Read the OP! Also, this discussion stems from JesseM's very first post in this thread: rest mass of the particles PLUS the kinetic energy = relativistic mass! Of course I do not agree with this...

In both instances, the context of the "weak equivalence principle" is meant. This follows naturally from freefall being inertial motion. And of course, what I originally said: "Tests of the weak equivalence principle are those that verify the equivalence of gravitational mass and...

m=p/v is incorrect for relativity. m=p/(γv) is correct for relativity. The former can only be used when v<<c and I hope is the only "many places" you are referring to, otherwise your sources are wrong. Actually, it was not concocted as an explanatory tool. In the old days, it was believed the...

How right you are! Yes and yes. Yes. Yes. Correct. Very good explanation. You obviously must be a qualified physicist unlike most on this forum. You are the first person on this forum that I've seen correctly explain the issue of relativity and mass. Good work :smile:

I was merely providing my expert analysis in trends. You are referring to gravitational mass! That is what the weak equivalence principle is all about. See http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equiv.html , gravitational mass is only mentioned in the Newton analysis and the weak equivalence...

Your posts are getting more and more stupid every time you post. I am not considering the curvature of space by the object! Holy crap. The curvature of space is by the Earth and the object exists in this curvature. You must think that I don't know what the equivalence principle is and will...

This is a very good question for JesseM and Pervect to answer directly :biggrin: Go ahead.