Re: a relativity question

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

Bernard Cleyet wrote:

> I agree it's the system -- But as being part of the system it has a
> greater mass than when in the ground state (joke; on the ground;
> even less under the ground).  How the increased mass is apportioned
> is beyond me.

I *think* I understand this to be indicating that you accept the idea
that mass is a property of a system, but that you still want to be
able to say that, if the mass of a system increases, then the masses
of the parts of the system must increase.  (I may, however, have
misconstrued the intended antecedents of one or more of the "it"s!)

I don't think you want to go there.  For example, the mass of a
nucleus is less than that of its constituents.  When I excite a
nucleus, the masses of its constituents don't change even though the
mass of the nucleus does (and is *still* less than that of its
constituents.)

--
John Mallinckrodt        mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.