Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:43:36 +0000
Subject: Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123
 years after,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <b0788923a07a14a4d1cd494533f4ae12@www.novabbs.com>
 <e3507a5710537d00193af308257ba978@www.novabbs.com>
 <05ca822f50e16fe18ccbce3c2e1126cf@www.novabbs.com>
 <vV1H_i0yJZ8SsgjX32gr0Fct04U@jntp>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:43:42 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vV1H_i0yJZ8SsgjX32gr0Fct04U@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <uyednQal59wVnnv7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6JBLvdzNSF5iFOxgHWPc6ZwG14qYFPCMRzZixR+PXSC5vhQyUPfjE17F9+5A1GMssbmiVACxcYvbKQo!dE+EWgPeyNDejL9pPAa3VGEp1wqluTi9no+hZiaXF+nvY5hX3zSRSRWUwlGq1U6JkETwUoeipPyP!rg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4217

On 09/14/2024 02:38 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/09/2024 à 22:18, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
>> They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
>> increasing with speed, in this way:
>>
>> 1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
>> mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
>> MASS IS INVARIANT.
>>
>> 2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
>> accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
>> because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.
>>
>> The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
>> = (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.
>>
>> Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
>> is stored
>>
>> There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
>> except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
>> by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.
>>
>> Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).
>>
>> Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
>> but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
>> a grain of sand or a neutron.
>
> Yes, there are scientists who are a little less stupid than the others
> who no longer use this concept that should never have existed.
>
> I think it is one of the stupidest and most fanatical concepts of the
> theory of relativity. One day, it will disappear, perhaps thanks to
> artificial intelligence that will come and stick its nose in it, and
> joke about it; denouncing it as particularly stupid.
>
> As for me, my hands are clean, I have been saying it for forty years,
> with conviction and consistency.
>
> I repeat it again here, it is NOT the mass that varies, but "the
> impression of speed". The observer who measures the particles,
> does not realize that the relativity of time, that is to say especially,
> here, of the notion of simultaneity, makes him observe a false measurement.
> I called this false measurement the obversible speed Vo relative to the
> real speed Vr of the particle in the subject's frame of reference.
>
> Let's give the particle its real speed, and everything is in order.
>
> Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)  <--->  Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
> p=m.Vr
> E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
> Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]
>
> In no case, in my life, have I ever posed m'=m/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
> The concept is false and useless.
>
> The absurd thought.
>
> Does a hippopotamus become two hippos if we accelerate it?
>
> No.
>
> It increases its quantity of movement, it increases its overall energy,
> it increases its kinetic energy. Not its "mass", nor its "electric charge".
>
> R.H.

"... ["potential"] energy ...".