🚀 go-pugleaf

An example of camouflage that is "not so silly":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b836800?
Tom Roberts, Jan 16, 2008:

John Kennaugh wrote:
> Mass is defined either as gravitational mass - measured by the
> force between one mass and another or as inertial mass in terms of
> momentum - which turns out to be the same as gravitational mass. My
> question was not why an electron has charge or why an electron has mass
> but why a photon doesn't have mass when it has all the properties which
> define mass i.e. it is effected by gravity and it has momentum.

Tom Roberts: "Today is not 1700, nor is it 1904. You are using
outmoded definitions for "mass". Today the mass of an object is
defined as the norm of its 4-momentum. As photons follow null
geodesics to incredibly high accuracy, they have zero mass (also to
incredibly high accuracy). Attempting to use "affected by gravity" as
a definition of "mass" is hopelessly outmoded. Our best theory of
gravity, GR, does not require an object to have mass in order to be
"affected by gravity" -- gravity is geometry and EVERYTHING is
inherently "affected". Attempting to use "has momentum" as a
definition of "mass" is also hopelessly outmoded. In both SR and GR,
an object can possess momentum while having zero mass. This
necessarily implies that such an object follows a null geodesic, but
that's OK because that is what we observe. You seem to forget that the
definitions of terminology used in physics depends on the physical
theories used -- the meanings of words change over time. Of course
this happens in everyday life as well, but change has been
particularly rapid in science during the past century or so. Your pre-
relativity and pre-quantum word meanings are hopeless in today's
world."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com