🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Carr wrote:
|  
| >Anything moving with respect to me has a reletive mass.
| 
|  The preferred terminology is "relativistic mass".

wagnerc@ieee.cas.uc.edu writes:
>
>Reletive is correct.  Reletivistic usually referes to quantities
>involving high fractions of the speed of light.

 No.  I don't know what they teach EE's, but the (seriously outdated) 
 terminology (and spelling) is "relativitstic mass". 

| >This is because
| >the faster you go the greater your reletive mass (to me).  Your reletive
| >mass (to me) is proportional to your velocity and your rest mass.  As
| >velocity goes to c, reletive mass goes to infinity.
|  
| However, this is *not* the gravitational mass, so you don't produce
| a black hole by accelerating a particle to high energy.  An easy way
| to see that you cannot do this is to realize that the "relativistic
| mass", i.e. energy, is different in every frame.  Thus you would have
| some reference frames where you see a black hole and others where you
| see a particle.  Physics would not be invariant between frames.

>The mass is reletive.  Gravity is also reletive.  The phenomenon can
>be correctly explained in more than one way.

 No it cannot.  I suggest you reread Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "Whatever."  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |      George Herbert Walker Bush 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |