Subject: Relativistic mass of EMR particles/waves
From: (Gauge)
Date: 11/13/03 3:12 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Several examples contrary to cardinale's claims can be found listed at
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...istic_mass.htm

Your own crank site is not a valid reference. Instead see
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm

Subject: Relativistic mass of EMR particles/waves
From: (Gauge)
Date: 11/13/03 3:20 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...nservation.htm

http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...er_of_mass.htm

Your crank sites are not valid references so the foundation of your entire
argument is invalid. Instead see
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:14:18 -0800, Gauge wrote:

(Bilge) wrote

If by "you guys", you mean those of us that are physicists, "us guys"
don't use "relativistic mass" in general ..

This is a lie. Pay no attention to him. Check out the counter examples
I've listed to bilge's claims.

Why most you consistently act like a grade school punk?

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.

(WaiteDavid137) wrote [nonsense]

And that is waite's response everytime he's corrected

Jeff Krimmel wrote [flame]

Why do you constantly act so childsish with these responses?

(WaiteDavid137) wrote [repetive flame]

You find the need to repeat that flame everytime you post huh?

"Zarkovic" wrote in message news:_fQsb.384619$9l5.370470@pd7tw2no...
Thanks guys, by the way, EMR=electro-magnetic radiation.

I just came across another referance on relativistic mass. It's in

"An elementary development of mass-energy equivalence," Daniel J.
Steck, Frank Rioux, Am. J. Phys. 51(5), May 1983

(This is a popular derivation. It's been published in at least two
other places that I'm aware of.)

Note: It should be noted that this is another case where the term
"mass" is used instead of "relativistic mass." Recall that
relativistic mass is the m in p = mv. However you will not find the
term "relativistic mass" in this paper. I.e. the authors are doing an
derivation like Einstein's original one but in a slightly different
way. A box is at rest in S. The box emits two photons of equal energy
in opposite directions towards observers A and B. The box remains at
rest due to conservation of momentum. In S', moving relative to S, the
change in momentum is calculated. The auhtors write
---------------------------------------
The classical definition of momentum is maintained by requiring that
p_block = mv. Since no recoil is observed in the rest frame, the
relativity principle requires that delta(v) = 0 in the moving frame
also. This means that the principle of the conservation of linear
momentum can only be preserved for A and B by postulating a mass
change for the block upon emission of the photons, or that
delta(p_block) = delta(mv) = v*delta(m). In light of these
considerations, Eq. (8) can be written as

delta(E) = delta(m)c^2

We note that an equivalent expression (delta(E^0) = delta(m^0)c^2) can
be written for the rest frame by combining Eqs. (7) and (9) and
interpreting delta(m)sqrt[1-v^2/c^2) as the change in rest mass of the
block resulting from the emission of the two photons:

delta(m^0) = delta(m)sqrt[1-v^2/c^2)

Generalizing on the basis of Eqs. (9) and (10) suggests that we can
write

E = mc^2

where

m = m^0/sqrt[1-v^2/c^2]
---------------------------------------

Notice that, according to the definition of mass in p = mv, light must
have mass.

Pmb

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message ...
Subject: Relativistic mass of EMR particles/waves
From: (Gauge)
Date: 11/13/03 2:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(Paul Cardinale) wrote

Watch out for PMB, he uses non-standard terminology and insists
that it is correct.

Nonsense. That's simply a bald faced lie posted by an ignorant person



And that is pmb's responce to everyone when everyone keeps telling him that he
is wrong.

That's pretty big talk considering that some of the professors where
YOU went to school say the same thing.

http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/Relativity.pdf

Zarkovic - As you can see in above PDF field a professor where waite
went to school (ASU) is also saying that the mass of a photon is given
by (note that v = c in this case)

Eq. (12) p = mv = Ev/c^2 = E/c = hf/c = h/lambda
lambda = h/p = hc/E = c/f

Too bad waite has to be so closed minded and has to lie all the time
about this - If he's not lying then he's simply ignorant

(Paul Cardinale) wrote [bs]

Read some of CERN's onbline literature

http://humanresources.web.cern.ch/hu..._24Feb03pm.pdf

and learn. Then hit the library and read the American Journal of
Physics etc etc etc

(WaiteDavid137) wrote [flame]

When waite is unable to find an error in a web page of mine he calls
it a crank site. That is the reason he has always been unable to find
an error besides typos