🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Stephan A. Manchir wrote:

> Dries van Oosten <dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl> wrote, well, typed, actually
> (unless they have a newton or other pen based computer, but that's not
> important right now, oh, or voice recognition):
> 
> 
> >On 17 Apr 1997, Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, If you want to use the whole "mass increases"
> thing, you have to differientiate between inertial and gravitational
> mass (even tho every thing we know of has equal amounts of each, and
> prolly everything does). 

That is not what I said. I don't like the idea of mass-increase, but what
you say is not what I meant. The gravitational and inertial mass of a
particle would still be equal as observed in any frame. The would however
(according to some people) both be bigger.

> Otherwise, the explanation of just having the
> 
> momentum increase is good enough. it's all just how you look at it.
> That whole mass increase thing always bothered me too, btw. But not
> nearly as much as people who state that warp drive works by lessening
> a ships mass. Gah! An infinite amount of 1/2 of something is still
> just as infinite as a whole something. And let's not even get into if 
> 9.999... = 10. Remember that? :)

I'm glad you agree with me, but the mass-increase thing doesn't just
bother me, I think it's an incorrect, old-fashioned idea that is
constantly being reanimated by the popular press. It's an over-
simplification that together with the twin-paradox draws the attention
away from the beauty of the theory.


> 
> 
> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970417182445.29917B-100000@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>,
> >> Dries van Oosten  <dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >doesn't change. If it would, what you say would have to be true and what
> >> >you say can't be true since this would mean that light (moving at c) would
> >> >see all masses infinitely large. This would mean that all masses would
> >> >"attract" light with the same strength. This is absurd. Every object would
> >> >be a black hole. Correct me if I make a mistake here, but this is how I
> >> >see it.
> >> 
> >> Just because two quantities are infinite doesn't mean they are equal.
> >> If you look at the ratio of the observed masses as the observer's
> >> velocity is taken to c, it will be different from 1.
> 
> 
> >This is not what I meant. What I meant is that if light sees all mass as
> >infinite, everything would be a black hole.
> 
> 
> "There is an art, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies
>  in learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" 
>  - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> sam14@po.cwru.edu              http://k2.scl.cwru.edu/~sam14
> 
> 
> 


Dries van Oosten

Eat any good books lately?