Moderator note: This thread was split from another thread on a different topic.
Crisp,
Thanks for the link. I had that one on Favorites but lost it when I had to replace my hard drive.
This is where I found Einstein's Quote about "Relavistic Mass"
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
Click: Index/Relativity/Relavistic Mass/Problems with Relavistic Mass
Here is the Home Page for the site. It is an excellent reference for a wide range of issues:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Hi MacM,
Yes, a very good quote. I hope you understand why Einstein argues that mass is not a good quantity, but momentum and energy are. The reason is that the combination of energy and momentum (sometimes dubbed "momenergy") is a 4-vector in Minkowski space which is left invariant by the Lorentz transformations. Invariant quantities are always very good to work with (as they require no calculations when going from one frame of reference to another).
Bye!
Crisp
Crisp,
Indeed I do. I also understand that Lorentz developed the formulas for use with ether and they were plagerized for Relativity and then ignore ether.
Einstein himself stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an ether doesn't exist, we have only proven we don't need one".
The difference is that ether supplies "Cause" whereas Relativity provides none. Relativity is action without cause and doesn't even qualify to be called theory but only a postulate.
It is therefore inferior to ether theories which can also supply lthe same function with cause.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
MacM, please stop trying to drag even more topics into your abyss of hell.
Persol,
MacM, please stop trying to drag even more topics into your abyss of hell.
ANS: This does seem to be the same topic. The difference is I am discussing the topic and you want to make jabs at people and avoid the topic. I can understand why since you can't disprove De Witte's work.
Why is it that you oppose Einstein?. He is the one that said Relativity didn't disprove an ether, not me.
It is not my abyss, it is yours. You are the one that wants to distort Einsteins own words and have your own version of Relativity.
Disprove the finding of an ether or butt out of this discussion. I will not be side tracked by you or the others that want to turn this into a personal fight. The issue is the discovery of an ether. Show him wrong by bonafide works or but out and admitt you have been full of smelly brown stuff.
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
Persol,
Hi MacM,
Yes, a very good quote. I hope you understand why Einstein argues that mass is not a good quantity, but momentum and energy are. The reason is that the combination of energy and momentum (sometimes dubbed "momenergy") is a 4-vector in Minkowski space which is left invariant by the Lorentz transformations. Invariant quantities are always very good to work with (as they require no calculations when going from one frame of reference to another).
Bye!
Crisp
It appears he wants to refer to Lorentz (an ether based proposition) and make use of it and at the same time question my understanding. I gave my understanding.
Lorentz is an ether based concept being plagerized by Relativity ignoring the ether.
Of course I could have left the challenge un-challenged but why should I?
Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.