: news:yxaji.46487$aS5.24856@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
: > Sideways mass is different to forward mass. If ever anything
: > showed abject stupidity, that does.
:
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:468e269e$0$16315$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
: Good point! --- The concept of "sideways mass",
: and rulers that change size when you run at them,
: and clocks that change time when you run at them,
: demonstrates that Relativity is a Tower of Babel
:

Thank you, but moving right along, this is 21st century technology
and the birth of 21st century astronomy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Physics is as dead as Latin, even if still spoken by cretins and
resentful has-beens.

--General Relativity is one of the most fruitful -SALES-
tools ever created by humans for the -PROMTION- of
understanding how the -TALES ABOUT- the universe work.
GTR has directly contributed to the -PROFITS ON SALES- in
a $30B+ industry, creating a global -**CON**- infrastructure
benefiting the - CROOKS and CONMEN who are EXPLOITING -
-GULLIBLE- people all over the world. Aviation, shipping, asset
management, survey, mining, agriculture, time dissemination,
communications networks, etc...

On Jul 5, 10:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-



SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.tr> wrote in messagenews:f6ja9q$vcm$1@aioe.org...

Another brick in the Einstein wall: There's no relativistic mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
"
The term mass in special relativity is commonly used by
physicists to mean a quantity that does not depend on the
observer or the inertial frame used to observe it.
However, because the term relativistic mass is also used,
this occasionally leads to confusion.

The invariant mass of an object (also known as the rest mass,
intrinsic mass or proper mass) is an observer-independent
quantity that is synonymous with mass.

On the other hand, the relativistic mass of an object (also known
as apparent mass) increases with its speed and therefore
depends on one's frame of reference. [--> BS^3 :-) ]

The concept of relativistic mass has gradually fallen into disuse in
physics since 1950[citation needed], when particle physics showed
the relevance of invariant mass, to the point that relativistic mass is
virtually never used in 2007 scientific research literature.
However, relativity text books of the early 1920s, written by well-respected
physicists, made the term "relativistic mass" common in popular
discussions and even in textbooks currently in use.

Yes, science can be really demanding to laymen.
You can always try stamp collecting as an alternative.

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
mr Van DER SHMATE
is one of the walking disasters here
for advance in science
it i snot only that he is a dunb parrot
he is an arrogant one as well

there is jsut one kind of mass
n omatetr how do you call it
2
th egamma factor
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON !!

Thank you for reminding us, in your typical broken English, about
something we already know.

On Jul 5, 10:53 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 5, 8:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

"gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.tr> wrote in messagenews:f6ja9q$vcm$1@aioe.org...

Another brick in the Einstein wall: There's no relativistic mass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
"
The term mass in special relativity is commonly used by
physicists to mean a quantity that does not depend on the
observer or the inertial frame used to observe it.
However, because the term relativistic mass is also used,
this occasionally leads to confusion.

The invariant mass of an object (also known as the rest mass,
intrinsic mass or proper mass) is an observer-independent
quantity that is synonymous with mass.

On the other hand, the relativistic mass of an object (also known
as apparent mass) increases with its speed and therefore
depends on one's frame of reference. [--> BS^3 :-) ]

The concept of relativistic mass has gradually fallen into disuse in
physics since 1950[citation needed], when particle physics showed
the relevance of invariant mass, to the point that relativistic mass is
virtually never used in 2007 scientific research literature.
However, relativity text books of the early 1920s, written by well-respected
physicists, made the term "relativistic mass" common in popular
discussions and even in textbooks currently in use.

Yes, science can be really demanding to laymen.
You can always try stamp collecting as an alternative.

Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
mr Van DER SHMATE
is one of the walking disasters here
for advance in science
it i snot only that he is a dunb parrot
he is an arrogant one as well

there is jsut one kind of mass
n omatetr how do you call it
2
th egamma factor
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON !!

Thank you for reminding us, in your typical broken English, about
something we already know.

[...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear John C. Polasek:

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ukiq831ge5i0mcplgdfm7d5derjo3lphc8@4ax.com...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:07:44 -0700, dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

Dear gravman:

On Jul 5, 10:37 am, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.tr>
wrote:

Another brick in the Einstein wall: There's no
relativistic mass:

Yes, it is really important to note that "relativistic mass"
(RM) cannot be used directly in any of Newton's
equations. Since "relativists" are constantly called on
the carpet for diverging from Newton dogma...

RM is a "spoiled pudding" of a scalar and a vector
quantity, and you really have to know what you are
doing to use it. If you know enough to use it right, you
know enough to remember E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2,
so it is not necessary.

This business of shrugging off of relativistic mass is
an embarassment for relativity

relativity remains unblushed. relativity does not care about
your opinion.

because it raises an obvious question that I have
never seen answered.

Like how Newton cannot describe the total energy of a body, but
relativity manages to?

The above total energy is readily factored:
E^2 = m^2v^2c^2 + m^2c^4 = m^2c^2(v^2 + c^2)
E = mc*sqrt(v^2 + c^2)
E = mc*BigC
Conclusion: if relativists disown a mass that's greater
than m0, then they can only get the total energy by
using velocity that is greater than c (BigC).

I said why it is disowned. It is disowned because RM is no
longer a true scalar. Newton's three laws fail, when using RM...
unless you are *very* careful.

There are so few degrees of freedom here. It seems
like the only answer is an illegal value of c, an
intolerable condition.

Big deal. "Everyone" is a critic. "Everyone" wants scalar mass,
and then barks and whines when they have to do just a little more
work to get it.

Have you tried gardening?

David A. Smith

On Jul 5, 4:40 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:07:44 -0700, dlzc <d...@cox.net> wrote:

Dear gravman:

On Jul 5, 10:37 am, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.tr> wrote:

Another brick in the Einstein wall: There's no
relativistic mass:

Yes, it is really important to note that "relativistic mass" (RM)
cannot be used directly in any of Newton's equations. Since
"relativists" are constantly called on the carpet for diverging from
Newton dogma...

RM is a "spoiled pudding" of a scalar and a vector quantity, and you
really have to know what you are doing to use it. If you know enough
to use it right, you know enough to remember E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2,
so it is not necessary.

David A. Smith

This business of shrugging off of relativistic mass is an embarassment
for relativity because it raises an obvious question that I have never
seen answered.
The above total energy is readily factored:
E^2 = m^2v^2c^2 + m^2c^4

No it's not, since p is not equal to mv.

- Randy