εllipse
- 197
- 0
You asked for a reference; I provided one. No need to be so harsh.Aer said:You are reiterating the concepts since abandoned by physicists. I am very aware that Einstein proposed relativistic mass long ago.
You seem to be assuming that the only thing we care about is how the world looks to us as we accelerate. But what about how things look to us as we accelerate them, while we remain inertial? For instance, when we get particles moving close to the speed of light in particle accelerators, the concept of relativistic mass does have use to us then because we do have a single inertial reference frame with which to make the measurement. Why can't we put a charged particle in a strong enough magnetic field to accelerate it faster than the speed of light? A very simple explanation is that its relativistic mass increases as we accelerate it, so its inertia/resistance to acceleration increases as well.Aer said:And it is this situation (measuring acceleration in a single inertial reference frame) in which relativistic mass has any relevance.