🚀 go-pugleaf

In Article <1992Jul22.193837.18095@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca 
(Leigh Palmer) writes:

> In order to illustrate my point, do you claim that a lump of
> condensed matter has a the same mass as the sum of the masses of
> its elementary constituents? Of course you don't.  That only
> begins the parade of difficulties attendant to using the currently
> fashionable definition outside its proper area of use.

> To further confuse the beginning physics student you could explain
> that the mass of that lump of matter is independent of its
> temperature.

  This caricature of the "currently fashionable definition of mass"
is pretty twisted.  Surely you can't be claiming that the use of
"rest mass" as "mass" implies that one must use the sum of
constituent masses to obtain the mass of an object?  If you are, then
how do you think particle physicists define the proton mass?  As the
sum of the masses of the constituent quarks?  Not likely.

  Hmmph.  I think I smell a straw man.  -- Dave


-- 
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        dk@imager.llnl.gov       (510) 422-1023  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*