sci.physics.particle

"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
news: @ ...
> On Aug 6, 12:24 am, The TimeLord
> wrote:
>> Pmb wrote in :
>> > My own, unpublished, version is at
>> > /physics_world/

Note: This paper is in the process of being reviewed by a relativity expert
I know and changes will be made as a result of his insights into the
subject. The paper will soon appear on /. A physics
professor from a physics forum is endorsing it for the archive. If things go
well then both this paper and my web site will be referenced in a future
issue of Physics Today. That will happen if the author's manuscript is
accepted by Physics Today. Here's hoping! :)

>> 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.

That's because you didn't read the article I wrote when I posted the URL to
it. Its all in there.

> 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.

Energy is not invariant but it is conserved.

Pete