🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 1, 5:22 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.research:
>
> > Aaron Arcsec wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Glen Herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> > >> As particles are accelerated their mass/energy increases
> > >> following special relativity.
>
> > > Are you claiming that a particle's mass/energy increases
> > > with its speed?  
>
> > He is using an old-fashioned terminology that has become outmoded
> > precisely because it is so easy to confuse it. Like you have done.
>
> > The modern vocabulary uses the word "mass" only for the intrinsic
> > property of an object that denotes "how much stuff is present". This is
> > manifestly independent of an object's motion, and is independent of
> > which observer is looking at the object. We say it is invariant.
>
> So Einsteiniana has abandoned the classical definition of mass hasn't
> it Honest Roberts:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
> "In physical science, mass refers to the degree of acceleration a body
> acquires when subject to a force.....In everyday usage, mass is
> commonly confused with weight. But, in physics and engineering, weight
> means the strength of the gravitational pull on the object."
>
> The following quotations clearly show why Einsteiniana has abandoned
> the classical definition of mass:
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
> in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote:"In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
> the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the gravitational
> redshift factor."
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
> of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
> be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
> and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> potential term."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

So, what's the problem?