This is rather vague. Let's start with something clearer. Do you know about Special Relativity? Yes? Then what have you concluded from that? No? Then maybe we can start you with that. Secondly, what do you mean by "everything"? There are covariant/invariant values and expressions in physics that are NOT relative. Zz.
I just have a basic idea about special theory of relativity.by everything I meant the physical quantities like energy,mass,velocity. From special theory of relativity I have concluded that velocity of light is the same for all observers so maybe velocity of light is not relative?
Mass is NOT absolute. ##M=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}## EDIT Mass, length, time, kinetic energy are all relative. Charge, spin, baryon no. etc are not relative
I believe it depends on how you learn special relativity. I learned it as mass being absolute, but I only just learned it in a classroom this semester, so I'm not an expert. edit- Why is this necessary?
Mass?But I heard that mass increases with Speed(Kinetic Energy) EDIT:Look at the Equation given by Enigman.
I hate arguing anything that I'm not too confident in, but for the sake of education!: I learned relativistic kinetic energy as: [itex]T=(\gamma_u - 1)mc^2[/itex] where mass is absolute. This is from the book "Modern Physics" second edition by Randy Harris Also, total relativistic energy: [itex]E=\gamma_u mc^2[/itex]. Where mass is absolute. edit- There are most certainly other quantities as well..
No charge is a Lorentz invariant. This follows from local charge conservation which is itself a consequence of Maxwell's equations. Rest mass (more appropriately called invariant mass) is also a Lorentz invariant.
Perhaps you are talking about the rest mass or the invariant mass? This the mass observed in an inertial frame where the object in question is at rest. (I perhaps should have mentioned this before) ##M=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}## gives the mass as observed from a frame in which object in question is moving with velocity v. But often mass and rest mass are used interchangeably Derivation here- http://www.scribd.com/doc/98591006/Simple-Derivation-for-Relativistic-Mass. (WBN beat me to it...)
The quantity ##M## in that equation is not frame-invariant, but ##M_0## is. It's something of a matter of taste which one you consider to be "mass", and that taste has changed over the years.
Yes, I was talking about relative or 'observed mass' as I thought it would be obvious from the context and not rest mass which is by definition frame-invariant. This is of course correct, provided m represents relative mass. And as ##m_{rel}=\gamma m## The mass-energy equation reduces to ##E=m_{rel} c^2##. ##m_{rel}## is the mass that would be observed from a frame in which the object moves with velocity v and m is the mass in the frame in which relative velocity is zero. You may want to read- http://www.scribd.com/doc/98591006/Simple-Derivation-for-Relativistic-Mass
Y'know, the more things change, the more they remain the same. This thing keeps coming back like an unwanted guest. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=642188 Please note this FACT: when you read the mass values of the various particles in the Particle Data Book, you'll notice that they never cite the corresponding speed. If mass is "relative", then there will not be a unique, unambiguous value. Zz.
If by "this person" you meant Lev Okun, he is on this forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=696144 Zz.
Why would I be referring to Lev Okun? He doesn't even make an appearance in the link I quoted... e- And when you say "Zz." at the end of your post it makes it seem like you are facepalming at the post you quoted lol
Lev Okun's name appears in the link if you scroll down to my post. So I mistakenly thought you were referring to his view on why we shouldn't be using the term "relativistic mass". The OP's view in that link isn't that interesting considering that it was mainly a question that needs clarification. In any case, I obviously thought you were referring to something else. Zz.