Re: [Phys-l] velocity-dependent mass (or not)

[carmelo@pacific.net.sg]

Quoting WC Maddox <maddox@physics.Auburn.EDU>:

> Did one author make a mistake? Does it matter whether it is a spring
> balance or a two pan balance? Are both authors wrong by not bringing in
> general relativity?

It should be worthwhile to consider Wolfgang Rindler's recent  
textbook, "Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmoslogical". (2006)

In relativity there are good reasons for adopting the second  
alternatives, though the first can be used as an occasional shortcut:  
the 'real' location of any part of the energy is no longer a mere  
convention, since energy (as mass) gravitates; that is, it contributes  
measurably (in principle) to the curavture of spactetime at its  
location. (Page 113)


Alphonsus