Not at all. Rest mass, or the measured mass, does not change with velocity. And that is what contributes to the gravitational field. Relativistic speeds changes the relationship between momentum and energy. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602037
What is there to prove ? Your post is riddled with so many inaccuracies, that there is nothing to prove. Lets take one by one.... How can you equate any kind of mass with momentum ? Physics chapter 1 deals with dimensional analysis. If we equate two things, they will have to be dimensionaly same, isn't it ? Mass is [M] while momentum is [MLT^-1]....Now pl throw some light how they are same ? You are an EFE man, in the past you have used EFE (acronym only, not the equations) innumerable times. Pl get back to EFEs, and prove to yourself what happens to Stress Energy Tensor when test particle has comparable relativistic mass with the main object. No, momentum is (gamma * rest mass * Velocity)..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (The equation above gives the formula for gamma also, and gamma * Mo is relativistic mass.) PS: Don't attempt to prove me wrong, you will prove the SR/GR/Lorentz transformations wrong..
Paddoboy, You have created Pt#4 for yourself.....highlighted part is by me. The paper referred is just arguing about the need for Relativistic Mass or so. SR with Lorentz transformation gives a dimensional less unit called gamma (as given in the above post), and thus we get Relativistic Mass, Length Contraction and Time Dilation associated with the object's motion. Whether we like or need the term relativistic mass or not, is the matter of argument, its there so we may have to live with it. Like appendix is there in our tummy, we have to live with it. Certainly the motion of the object makes an impact on the Stress Energy Tensor calculations (significance and contribution apart), since rest mass is primarily associated with the tensor, the impact of the motion can be termed as impact due to relativistic mass. [This is a very simple approach, any one comfortable with Tensor equations may help by bringing in few equations.]
You provided no proof and no supporting reference. Did you look at Lev Okun's paper? From Lev Okun's paper I linked, As I will show, this terminology had some historical justification at the beginning of our century, but it has no rational justification today. When doing relativistic physics (and often when teaching relativistic physics), particle physicists use only the term "mass." According to this rational terminology the terms "rest mass" an d"relativistic mass" are redundant and misleading. There is only one mass in physics, m, which does not depend onthe reference frame. There is only one mass used by real physicists. The term relativistic mass is out dated and misleading.., as can be seen by your statements. The mass of an object does not get larger when it moves!
This asking others to provide supporting references is good one, I like it. I know a little bit of law, in the law there are rules procedures and acts and they are stated and well documented. Based on this many more points and explanations emerge, and if there is any apparent dispute the highest court of the land gives the final interpretation. Now if I make a statement which is a recorded law, then if someone else opposing that asks for reference, then this proves that the querist is plain vanilla ignorant on the subject. [of course there could be some obscure laws which may not be known even to the most knowledgeable man, that is apart]. Still I have answered in my post # 22, what more do you want ?
Your problem in this is that the law here is the rules of the Physics & Math forum. Look them up! What I would like is for you to read through at least the reference I provided, if not also the one paddoboy provide as well. Then present a reasonable argument... your position on the issue of relativistic mass is shown false by the references presented. If you continue to disagree, provide a credible counter reference and an actual proof of you own. Just saying a thing does not make it so Rajesh.., and you do a lot of just saying things...
What is the import of this Lev Okun's quote on the question ? How does it help OP ? If OP has used the term relativistic mass, which is defined as gamma * rest mass....then can you just brush aside the OP that forget it, relativistic mass is useless, if a student asks a biology teacher "what is apendix". Can the teacher say that forget it, it is redundant ? The deeper meaning of the OP is what if the gamma becomes so significant that the test particle's (gamma*rest mass) becomes comparable to the main object's mass. Answer that ? You just goofed up by comparing mass with momentum and what not.
There's a reason I've got this crank on ignore. I showed ignored content long enough to read his posts, and promptly put him back on.
I have had no pleasure of interacting or reading AlexG posts before this. If this is what he knows about science, then I wonder what all he has written in his 4123 posts so far ? Has he really contributed some science to this forum. I am more than willing to get corrected on this.
You mean like you were proved wrong with BNSs, Gravity overcoming the strong force in BHs, Schwarzchild radius and compulsory collapse, GR not being applicable at the quantum/Planck level? Gotcha. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bingo, bingo, bingo and bingo. Rajesh is wrong [again] and is attempting to hide his error in complicating the issue even more......... Rest mass will always remain constant. All that is referred with relativistic mass is actually the relativistic momentum. In other words any mass in motion will always have the same rest mass but an increase in relativistic mass to an observer at rest. The main point for Rajesh to accept and digest is rather simple....... "Inertial mass equals gravitational mass and is constant"
Your're corrected. Although I do not see that as making any difference to you ánd accepting you are wrong again.
You again started babbling........What is this GR not being applicable at the Quantum/Planck's level ?? That is what you stated in Pt#1 in the previous thread and failed to substantiate. Since you are jumping time and again, let me make it straight. BNS is an alternative theory, so whether it is wrong or right, lets hold it. All other points pertain to the interpretation to existing Physics and I do not think, you or anyone else has proved me wrong anywhere so far. You take a sabbatical, read some good Physics Books (Yes, text books) and then come back. PS: Don't screw up this thread also with your copy paste, if you feel there are any outstanding issues with me or by me, please start a fresh thread in the section of your choice, I will surely respond. No bilateral dialogue, henceforth on some one else thread.
Paddoboy, Post # 22 and # 23 are simple and clear and sums up my stand, and they are as per prevailing science. Don't mix up things, see if you can find any fault in anything which I stated in these two posts. One More thing: Since you jumped in between, when there are two differing opinions on an established point, then a prudent man takes side only when he is 100% sure of the subject. Otherwise he should just stick to references without offering any personal opinion. You made a fatal mistake again.
If you believe GR is applicable at the quantum/Planck level, then show me how and where.......and then explain why we are still searching for validated QGT http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm The Planck scale: relativity meets quantum mechanics meets gravity. So, where do these quantities come from? The speed of light c is the natural unit that relates time and space. G is the constant of gravity, and h is the constant of quantum mechanics. So the Planck scale defines the meeting point of gravity, quantum mechanics, time and space. Currently, we don't know much about this interaction, because gravity is so feeble that its influence on things as small as quantum systems is small. What you think is in the main pseudoscience and unsupported. The BNS is not an alternative theory...it is an hypothesis and totally discredited by all and sundry. Thanks for the advice. And sure when I need to I will, just as I will gain knowledge from reputable internet links, You could do yourself a favour and also take up some good reading to improve your knowledge and show you the error of your ways. I'm screwing nothing up, just making past history known in case any newbies pop in that are not aware of your general unsupported interpretation on cosmology. Again for your benefit...... Rest mass will always remain constant. All that is inferred with relativistic mass is actually the relativistic momentum. In other words any mass in motion will always have the same rest mass but an increase in relativistic mass to an observer at rest. The main point for Rajesh to accept and digest is rather simple....... "Inertial mass equals gravitational mass and is constant"
The present day accepted definition of relativistic mass is as at least three here have told you and given a link and a paper to support. here they are again....... http://www.itep.ru/theor/persons/lab180/okun/em_3.pdf and..... http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602037 The only fatal mistakes are in all your threads. led by your total inability to admit you are in error, your arrogant bull headed attitude, and your pretentious attitude towards others.
Please try and answer the question put in the OP. Rest mass, or the measured mass, does not change with velocity. And that is what contributes to the gravitational field. Relativistic speeds changes the relationship between momentum and energy.
True. Highlighted is very inconvenient statement, true in case of Newtonian. In case of relativistic motion the gamma also plays the role in distortion/curvature of spacetime by contributing the Stress Energy Tensor..(Slightly complex, request please look into GR equations) What do you want to convey ? See the equation of momentum in my post # 22.....that is different from what OnlyMe suggested in the starting.
