Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 7/29/03 1:59 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(David) wrote in message
.com...
(Radi Khrapko) wrote

F, A, P, U are 4-vectors. f, a, p, v are 3-vectors.
It is remarkable that only P^i = p^i.
We have F^i = dP^i/ds = gamma*f^i,
U^i = gamma*v^i,
A^i = dU^i/ds = gamma*(d gamma/dt)*v^i + (gamma^2)*a^i.
You write
F = m*A, f = m*v*(d gamma/dt) + m*gamma*a,
P = m*U, p = gamma*m*v.
I write
F = m_0*A, f = m_0*v*(d gamma/dt) + m_0*gamma*a,
P = m_0*U, p = m*v.
Do you agree?

If you mean do I agree tha they equations are isomorphic then the
answer is yes. If you mean do I agree that this validates your
subscripting mass with a zero and qualifying it with the word rest,
then the answer is no. Calling mass by "rest mass" infers to the
student that mass changes with speed, but in reality it is now defined
as an invariant so that it does not change with speed. That is what
invariant means.

Radi to David 29 00:11(#136)

Well, you agree with the formulae, but do not agree to call "invariant
mass" by "rest mass."
And what about the term "inertia"? What is "inertia"?


Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of resistance to deviation
from constant motion, the m in Newton's second law
f = ma.
The most closely corresponding relativistic definition would be a resistance to
deviation from geodesic motion, the m in relativity's four-vector vertion of
Newton's second law
F = mA.
For A = 0 is the geodesic equation and corresponds to Newton's first law or law
of inertia a = 0.

David Waite

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 7/29/03 1:59 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(David) wrote in message
.com...
(Radi Khrapko) wrote

F, A, P, U are 4-vectors. f, a, p, v are 3-vectors.
It is remarkable that only P^i = p^i.
We have F^i = dP^i/ds = gamma*f^i,
U^i = gamma*v^i,
A^i = dU^i/ds = gamma*(d gamma/dt)*v^i + (gamma^2)*a^i.
You write
F = m*A, f = m*v*(d gamma/dt) + m*gamma*a,
P = m*U, p = gamma*m*v.
I write
F = m_0*A, f = m_0*v*(d gamma/dt) + m_0*gamma*a,
P = m_0*U, p = m*v.
Do you agree?

If you mean do I agree tha they equations are isomorphic then the
answer is yes. If you mean do I agree that this validates your
subscripting mass with a zero and qualifying it with the word rest,
then the answer is no. Calling mass by "rest mass" infers to the
student that mass changes with speed, but in reality it is now defined
as an invariant so that it does not change with speed. That is what
invariant means.

Radi to David 29 00:11(#136)

Well, you agree with the formulae, but do not agree to call "invariant
mass" by "rest mass."
And what about the term "inertia"? What is "inertia"?


Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of resistance to
deviation
from constant motion, the m in Newton's second law
f = ma.

That's not what force is. Force is, by definition f = dp/dt where p = mv


The most closely corresponding relativistic definition would be a
resistance to
deviation from geodesic motion,

No. The closet thing to f = dp/dt where p = mv is f = dp/dt where p = mv

this relation has always been valid since it's not a law of nature but a
defintion of quantities.


Pmb

Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: "Pmb"
Date: 7/29/03 2:52 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 7/29/03 1:59 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(David) wrote in message
.com...
(Radi Khrapko) wrote

F, A, P, U are 4-vectors. f, a, p, v are 3-vectors.
It is remarkable that only P^i = p^i.
We have F^i = dP^i/ds = gamma*f^i,
U^i = gamma*v^i,
A^i = dU^i/ds = gamma*(d gamma/dt)*v^i + (gamma^2)*a^i.
You write
F = m*A, f = m*v*(d gamma/dt) + m*gamma*a,
P = m*U, p = gamma*m*v.
I write
F = m_0*A, f = m_0*v*(d gamma/dt) + m_0*gamma*a,
P = m_0*U, p = m*v.
Do you agree?

If you mean do I agree tha they equations are isomorphic then the
answer is yes. If you mean do I agree that this validates your
subscripting mass with a zero and qualifying it with the word rest,
then the answer is no. Calling mass by "rest mass" infers to the
student that mass changes with speed, but in reality it is now defined
as an invariant so that it does not change with speed. That is what
invariant means.

Radi to David 29 00:11(#136)

Well, you agree with the formulae, but do not agree to call "invariant
mass" by "rest mass."
And what about the term "inertia"? What is "inertia"?


Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of resistance to
deviation
from constant motion, the m in Newton's second law
f = ma.

That's not what force is. Force is, by definition f = dp/dt where p = mv

I already mathematically proved you wrong. Fine, again-

F = DP/dtau
P = mU
so
F = D(mU)/dtau
F = mDU/dtau
F = mA
the corresponding Newtonian law is
f = ma

The most closely corresponding relativistic definition would be a
resistance to
deviation from geodesic motion,

No. The closet thing to f = dp/dt where p = mv is f = dp/dt where p = mv

Your thinking is circular and irrelevent to what I was saying.

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: "Pmb"
Date: 7/29/03 2:52 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Radi Khrapko)
Date: 7/29/03 1:59 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(David) wrote in message
.com...
(Radi Khrapko) wrote

F, A, P, U are 4-vectors. f, a, p, v are 3-vectors.
It is remarkable that only P^i = p^i.
We have F^i = dP^i/ds = gamma*f^i,
U^i = gamma*v^i,
A^i = dU^i/ds = gamma*(d gamma/dt)*v^i + (gamma^2)*a^i.
You write
F = m*A, f = m*v*(d gamma/dt) + m*gamma*a,
P = m*U, p = gamma*m*v.
I write
F = m_0*A, f = m_0*v*(d gamma/dt) + m_0*gamma*a,
P = m_0*U, p = m*v.
Do you agree?

If you mean do I agree tha they equations are isomorphic then the
answer is yes. If you mean do I agree that this validates your
subscripting mass with a zero and qualifying it with the word rest,
then the answer is no. Calling mass by "rest mass" infers to the
student that mass changes with speed, but in reality it is now
defined
as an invariant so that it does not change with speed. That is what
invariant means.

Radi to David 29 00:11(#136)

Well, you agree with the formulae, but do not agree to call "invariant
mass" by "rest mass."
And what about the term "inertia"? What is "inertia"?


Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of resistance to
deviation
from constant motion, the m in Newton's second law
f = ma.

That's not what force is. Force is, by definition f = dp/dt where p = mv

I already mathematically proved you wrong. Fine, again-

F = DP/dtau
P = mU
so
F = D(mU)/dtau
F = mDU/dtau
F = mA
the corresponding Newtonian law is
f = ma

The most closely corresponding relativistic definition would be a
resistance to
deviation from geodesic motion,

No. The closet thing to f = dp/dt where p = mv is f = dp/dt where p = mv

Your thinking is circular and irrelevent to what I was saying.

And thank you for giving me the dailey reason to block yet another of your
e-mail addresses

try to stick to one

Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: "Pmb"

No. The closet thing to f = dp/dt where p = mv is f = dp/dt where p = mv

Your thinking is circular and irrelevent to what I was saying.

And thank you for giving me the dailey reason to block yet another of your
e-mail addresses


You've never blocked me and you never will.
David Waite

WaiteDavid137 wrote:
: Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of
: resistance to deviation from constant motion, the m in
: Newton's second law f = ma.

And there is no reason for inertial mass
to be different from invariant mass, there should
only be one mass, and it should mean the quantity
of matter as directly measurable.

All General Relativity should have done to
the idea of mass is eliminate the concepts of
gravitational mass and inertial mass being
separate attributes.
Einstein declared that the PoE means that
they are identical and are two different terms
for the same quantity, but did not go far enough
in removing the concept of a gravitational force
causing accelerated freefall.

: The most closely corresponding relativistic definition would
: be a resistance to deviation from geodesic motion, the m in
: relativity's four-vector vertion of Newton's second law
: F = mA.

Yes, geodesic motion is identical to inertial
motion and should be thought of as straight line motion
regardless of how much curve is observed.
Then the notion of gravitational force can
be forgotten (hopefully).

: For A = 0 is the geodesic equation and corresponds to Newton's
: first law or law of inertia a = 0.
: David Waite

It seems to me that some people like to
make physics seem more complicated, but the above
seems to show that General Relativity simplifies
physics.
Rest mass should simply mean inertial mass,
and geodesic motion should be identical to inertial
motion in every way, it is only the observer that
sees the curve.
Mass is invariant, and never changes without
the number of atoms, or binding energy, or chemical
energy, or temperature changing.

Joe Fischer

--
3

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
WaiteDavid137 wrote:
: Inertia or Inertial mass really was once a measure of
: resistance to deviation from constant motion, the m in
: Newton's second law f = ma.

And there is no reason for inertial mass
to be different from invariant mass, there should
only be one mass, and it should mean the quantity
of matter as directly measurable.

joe - Open up your copy of "Spacetime Physics - 2nd Ed," by Taylor and
Wheeler. Turn to page 248. The following question is posed

"What's the meaning of mass for a system in which the particles interact as
well as move?"

Tell us how the authors respond/ Do you agree with their response?

Pmb

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message ...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: "Pmb"

No. The closet thing to f = dp/dt where p = mv is f = dp/dt where p = mv

Your thinking is circular and irrelevent to what I was saying.

And thank you for giving me the dailey reason to block yet another of your
e-mail addresses


You've never blocked me and you never will.
David Waite

Deluded I see. You need to ask your shrink to adjust your meds sparky.

Facts are facts - you're in my blocksender list - and your there
because you're a crackpot who constantly insults people who correct
you and you never resopond to critisism with an arguement but simple
and constantly repeat your erroenous arguements based on a defintion
you want to be true and inore the fact the conversations you're in are
all about the particular definition.

And you're in my block senders list so I see the minimum nonsense and
insults that you pump out on a regular basis. Being in a blocksenders
file doesn't meann I run into your childish internet antics when I'm
browsing with Google. And I use google becuase the search function is
better

sparky - you think far too much of yourself

Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Gauge)

And thank you for giving me the dailey reason to block yet another of your
e-mail addresses


You've never blocked me and you never will.
David Waite

Deluded I see. You need to ask your shrink to adjust your meds sparky.

Facts are facts - you're in my blocksender list -

Its funny how I'm on your block sender list and yet you keep replying to me.
You are a liar.

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message ...
Subject: Rest mass or inertial mass?
From: (Gauge)

And thank you for giving me the dailey reason to block yet another of your
e-mail addresses


You've never blocked me and you never will.
David Waite

Deluded I see. You need to ask your shrink to adjust your meds sparky.

Facts are facts - you're in my blocksender list -

Its funny how I'm on your block sender list and yet you keep replying to me.
You are a liar.


This is pretty much more of the same old 'david waite' antics designed
to illicit a response - just more of sparky parroting his same oles
song and dance- again.

I know you're unable to understand this sparky but I block people like
you because they're always posting irritating non-responsive/closed
minded crap. So while I may run into people like you when I search for
Pmb I will never see new posts that you start or contribute to which I
dont'

Funny how you neglect to mention that part - Nah. Not funny - expected

Mr. Pmb
pmb