If an object has to gain infinite mass to reach the speed of light, why isn't the photon said to be an object with infinite mass?
David A. Smith: First, an object's mass does not vary with speed. Its relativistic momentum does. So an object does not "have to gain infinite mass". Einstein himself said not to teach the concept because students rarely use it correctly and don't remember it is a multi-valued scalar.
Me: I would beg to differ According to Special Relativity, mass increases when length decreases. Length decreases when time slows down. Time slows down when velocity increases.
David A. Smith: Here is a quote from Einstein himself: "It is not good to introduce the concept of [relativistic 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."
*Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L.B. Okun (1989), p. 42)
Me: "an object's mass does not vary with speed"
The term 'relativistic mass' itself tells you that it isn't an absolute (changeless). We can use a metal spring to prove that mass increases in proportion to its length. The mass is greater relative to the length of the spring.
David A. Smith: Notice how the question conflated "relativistic mass" with "mass". They are different things. Mass = rest mass = inertial mass = gravitational mass. Don't wander off into the woods.
Me: Do you know what an object at rest is? It's an object being resisted to 0 km/hr, allowing us to measure its full potentialized force (weight).
David A. Smith: Argumentative nature revealied. You have said nothing new. Not interested in further discussion with you. Muted and Blocked.
Me: lol
David A. Smith: First, an object's mass does not vary with speed. Its relativistic momentum does. So an object does not "have to gain infinite mass". Einstein himself said not to teach the concept because students rarely use it correctly and don't remember it is a multi-valued scalar.
Me: I would beg to differ According to Special Relativity, mass increases when length decreases. Length decreases when time slows down. Time slows down when velocity increases.
David A. Smith: Here is a quote from Einstein himself: "It is not good to introduce the concept of [relativistic 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."
*Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L.B. Okun (1989), p. 42)
Me: "an object's mass does not vary with speed"
The term 'relativistic mass' itself tells you that it isn't an absolute (changeless). We can use a metal spring to prove that mass increases in proportion to its length. The mass is greater relative to the length of the spring.
David A. Smith: Notice how the question conflated "relativistic mass" with "mass". They are different things. Mass = rest mass = inertial mass = gravitational mass. Don't wander off into the woods.
Me: Do you know what an object at rest is? It's an object being resisted to 0 km/hr, allowing us to measure its full potentialized force (weight).
David A. Smith: Argumentative nature revealied. You have said nothing new. Not interested in further discussion with you. Muted and Blocked.
Me: lol
No comments:
Post a Comment