sci.physics.particle

On Aug 6, 12:24 am, The TimeLord
wrote:
> Pmb wrote in :
> > My own, unpublished, version is at
> > /physics_world/
>
> OpenOffice , cool! However, in table 2, the "Pro-Relativistic Mass"
> column is wrong. I don't know anything about the "Con-Relativistic
> Mass" column since each view seems to depend on the "Con" person's
> view. Here are some ways you can correct the "Pro" column:

Con means with, and is not the oppos of pro.

> 1. Relativistic mass should be avoided since Einstein never used it
> and was against the concept. It has created more confusion than the
> concept is worth. Relativistic mass came from the relation
> p = gamma*m*v
> where it was suggested that momentum should be viewed as
> p = (gamma*m)*v = m_rel*v
> Today we view momentum as
> p = m*(gamma*v)=m*dx/d(tau)

This is excellent; nobody else told me why. But the gamma should
apply to anything--either or both--as heat-compression is the idea and
not merely speed-compression or weiht-compression.

How about n = o + p = m/t s + m s/t? and = M/t y S + M y S/t?

> 2. Mass is a scalar and thus invariant. Mass is conserved unless it
> changes to energy. Mass is the amount of matter.

Is energy invariant? There is no conservation of matter.

-Aut