Re: [Phys-l] E=mc^2 because E=mc^2?

[<carmelo@pacific.net.sg>]

Jack wrote:
> "Good Reasons", normally means a negative referee's report that 
> accompanies the rejection, and an invitation to respond to the referee's 
> report.  A bad reason, that I once encounered, is that some advertisers 
> might take exception to the paper, in the opinion of the editor.  The 
> paper was eventually published, after substantial rewriting that
> deleted favorable comments about a textbook.

One cannot be sure if the referee’s real reason of reject Oas’ paper is "really" communicated to him. Those referees who are in favor of “relativistic mass”, may disagree with Oas’ reasoning such as Lorentz Covariance, pedagogical reasons etc.

Those referees who are in favor of “mass” may find Oas’ paper possibly “dangerous”. It may undermine one of their most powerful reasons: “relativistic mass” is obsolete, out of fashion, and no longer in use.

On the Contrary, 477 out of 637 works still relied upon the concept of “relativistic mass”. This may sanction the public to promote the use of “relativistic mass”. The fact is: Oas’ effort is still limited. There are many books, textbooks and journals from other countries such as Britain, France, China etc still adopt “relativistic mass”. (Does Oas know about this fact?)

Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft explains that “Mass and energy in this theory also depend on velocity” and “Modern physics teachers prefer to redefine mass such that it is velocity independent.” This also undermines the position of those who are in favor of “mass”. Textbooks from Belgium may follow Hooft’s position. Veltman, another Nobel laureate, also explain how mass increase with speed... Textbooks from Netherlands may also follow Veltman's position?

Back in 1964, Feynman was surprised that relativistic mass was rarely used within his community, however he still introduced it in “The Feynman Lectures”. With many other Nobel laureates, Stephen Hawking (and many others mentioned in Oas's paper) introducing this concept in many other writings, one would expect the use of "relativistic mass" to continue for many more years. 

In a sense, Oas’ paper can also be used to promote the usage of “relativistic mass”. The majority is still using “relativistic mass”!


Alphonsus