Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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

How interesting that you used electromagnetic deflection of a high speed particle, rather than the gravitational deflection of a photon i.e. by angular displacement of the path of a photon beam at glancing solar incidence during a solar eclipse! The latter setup whispers to adherents of the current view of gravitational displacement, only about space-time distortion, but the former seems to bring less baggage to the party!

Brian W

Moses Fayngold wrote:
It is true that relativistic mass is essentially relativistic energy. But it is also true that it can be independently determined as MASS
(measure of inertness - ratio of external force perpendicular to acceleration when the force is perpendicular to velocity) by an executable experimental procedure (e.g., from known charge, velocity, and radius of the circle traced out by a particle in a known magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the circle).

Moses Fayngold,

--- On Sun, 6/21/09, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] velocity-dependent mass (or not)
Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 9:30 AM

Quoting John Denker <>:
-- Should this notion be deprecated?
-- Has this notion in fact been deprecated by professional
relativists, for many many decades, i.e. throughout most of
the history of the subject?
-- Is this merely a question of taste, or is the vulgar notion
of velocity-dependent mass provably and quantitatively wrong,
especially when we consider something other than straight-line
-- How many more decades will it take before this trickles down
to the introductory-level textbooks?

Electromotive force is not a force, displacement current is not really a current, and relatisitic mass, is in a sense, energy or mass depending on one's definition...

Will all these notion be deprecated? Perhaps, physicists enjoy the use of metaphor? :-)