Can Mass Be Converted to Energy and Vice Versa?

[pallidin]

Everything I've ever posted on this forum or any other forum or newsgroup is readily found in the [modern relativity literature. All references have always been provided when asked

Even the Usenet Physics FAQ explains the facts that I have in this post, i.e. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Even that FAQ is somewhat lacking since it claims that this is an outdated concept. But that's empoerically incorrect since its very difficult to find a modern relativity text which doesn't use this concept in one place or another. One merely has to look and there it is. chroot doesn't choose to look. He prefers to whine and insult instead.

OK, fine. Perhaps this can be put in another way:
Facts are that which can be repeatedly and responsibly reproduced by others, so much so that it becomes accepted within the mainstream scientific community.
Do your propositions reflect that criteria?

 

[pmb_phy]

OK, fine. Perhaps this can be put in another way:
Facts are that which can be repeatedly and responsibly reproduced by others, so much so that it becomes accepted within the mainstream scientific community.
Do your propositions reflect that criteria?

The world trade center was destroyed on September 11, 2001. I take that as fact and I hold that it would be irresponsible to repeat it.

I'm speaking about a definition. Its impossible to create an experiment to prove that a definition is either correct or incorect. Its only possible to show that such a definition is consistent and adhered to within the scientific community by a signficant, not neccesarily dominant, fraction.

What terms are accepted by the scientific community are those that appear in scientific journals, scientific texts, and now that the new millineum is here - on university website/online lecture notes and web sites at particle accelerator labs. All one need do regarding what I've posted is go to the those sources and see for themselves.

There are two basic notions of the mass of a particle in relativity. Proper mass is the coefficient of proportionality between 4-momentum and 4-velocity. Relativistic mass is the coefficient of proportionality between 3-momentum and 3-velocity. It's as simple as that. Any arguements on this topic are people complaining that "mass" is a short hand term for one of them. Its best to leave the qualifier in and stop all this whining about whether the term "mass" refers to proper/relativistic mass. Complaints such as those by chroot are just plain silly.

Pete

 

[pallidin]

I'm speaking about a definition. Its impossible to create an experiment to prove that a definition is either correct or incorect. Its only possible to show that such a definition is consistent and adhered to within the scientific community by a signficant, not neccesarily dominant, fraction.

Pete

You make a specific distinction between "significant" and "dominant"
It would seem to me that "significance" alludes "important indications" whereas "dominant" alludes a bullying attitude.

 

[pmb_phy]

You make a specific distinction between "significant" and "dominant"
It would seem to me that "significance" alludes "important indications" whereas "dominant" alludes a bullying attitude.

That's not very logical. If 60% of a group likes Coke and 40% likes Pepsi, do you force the 40% of the group who likes Pepsi to stop drinking Pepsi and force then to drink Coke? No! It's a matter of taste. Don't force a particular view on a group without explaining both views and letting them choose. Even in that cases its extremely silly since there has never been any confusion between proper mass and relativistic mass. The only thing people whine about is what the term "mass" refers to. Its a very bad idea to not introduce each one since each is meaningful.

People who explain relativistic mass should be harassed and that's my point. chroot and others love to harass me for using that term and that is a pathetic attitude.

Besides, how else are people going to understand what the literatude under the CERN website means?

http://humanresources.web.cern.ch/humanresources/external/training/tech/special/AXEL2003/AXEL-2003_L02_24Feb03pm.pdf

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Every question has presuppositions. His question is so weird, that it only makes sense in the context of his own theory. I applaud the mentors' efforts to keep general forum discussions consistent with accepted physics, because if it contains every new theory, it will be of no use to students who want a deeper understanding of currently accepted physical theories. If you or Dmitriyev want to discuss other stuff, go to the Theory Development" forum. PLease.

I'm with Warren.


This is starting up again? I'm outta here.

I have not left for limits of the formula submitted by chroot himself.
Is it a great sin if I say that pi (r^2) is the area of a circle?
Whose an infallibility I have braked by thus?

 

[AnthreX]

guyz i still don't really know the conclusion...
well even if there isn't one

thank you for your time

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

guyz i still don't really know the conclusion...
well even if there isn't one

thank you for your time

Energy of mass, at the limit, is equal to the total energy of photons which an object (mass) emits at the full disintegration.