"2) The first edition of
Taylor & Wheeler
was very influential. Very impressive little book. For
some students, this was the first physics book they ever
saw that had any semblance of class, of panache. It took
something that seemed ugly and complicated and showed it
to be simple and elegant.
Then, as sometimes happens with people, the book gained
weight and got uglier as it got older. I'm referring
to the second edition, which spends far too much time
talking about length contraction, time dilation, various
notions of velocity-dependent mass, and other stuff that
really should be left out entirely. I assume there was
market pressure from people who "expected" the book to
cover the archaic (pre-1908) approach, not just the
modern (post-1908) approach."
I'm confused. Here is a direct quote from page 251 of the 2nd edition ==>
". . . should we call invariant mass of a particle its "rest mass"?
That is what we called it in the first edition of this book. but a
thoughtful student pointed out that the phrase "rest mass" is also subject
to misunderstanding. . . . "
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)