You can always set the proportionality constant to 1, in any equation; but commonly "mass" is specified in kg.With c=1, the units match.
(Nearly?) everywhere where relativistic effects are relevant, unit systems with c=1 are used.
I wrote it in order to remark this fact for those who can read these pages (by experience there are many people interested in these concept and who don't have a university or however a proper formation in the subject of relativity).Certainly not in SR, and this is explained in the earlier given references.
But the meaning is what I wrote.Nonsense - as the physics FAQ explains, "longitudinal" and "transverse" mass preceded "relativistic mass".
No, because the "m" in F = m*a is certainly not a constant (hint: body 1 has mass m1, body 2 has mass m2, ecc.)Obviously the units don't match, they are physically different concepts just as force is a different concept from acceleration.
If you think just a litte bit more about it, you discover they're not.If one needs propaganda based on such bogus arguments, then the situation is very poor.
Not in atomic, nuclear and particle physics. Every particle physicist knows the masses of the fundamental particles to some approximation - but just in eV, which is a unit of energy. Sure, you can convert it to kg or say "eV/c^2", but I think you see the connection to energy.but commonly "mass" is specified in kg.
"Mass" is clear, why should you call "mass" "proper mass" with exactly the same meaning?I wonder, why do so many people find it too much work to speak of "proper mass"? In fact it's really a non-issue: people should just be clear what they mean.
Although "mass" ought to be clear, there's a fair amount of observational data that suggests that it's not. We're standing in some of it right now:uhh:"Mass" is clear, why should you call "mass" "proper mass" with exactly the same meaning?
That is imprecise. The different meanings of "mass" in the literature are clear for many physicists, but by far not clear to all. Some particle physicists use both meanings, just as is common for "time". It's because of unfamiliarity that erroneous statements are made of the kind that again appeared in this thread.Ok, more precise: The meaning of "mass" is clear for all particle physicists. [..]