Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 years after,

Le 14/09/2024 à 22:18, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :

They deal with this aspect, after decades of thinking about mass
increasing with speed, in this way:
>
1. Relativist gave up, most of them in the last 25 years, the idea of
mass being a function of speed v. They now considered (most ones) that
MASS IS INVARIANT.
>
2. They transferred the gain in KE to a pure energy gained by the
accelerated particle. So, the energy gain is STORED into the air,
because mass is not affected. M = Mo, whichever v is.
>
The solution is to accept widely that the KE of a moving particle is KE
= (Y-1)Moc^2. where Mo is the mass at rest.
>
Of course, don't try to question this formula and ask WHERE the extra KE
is stored
>
There is no difference of this formula with the Newtonian KE = 1/2 Mv^2,
except that the extra KE is stored in the ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, given
by (Y-1)c^2 instead of 1/2v^2.
>
Mysteries of relativity (pseudoscience).
>
Don't forget that the above is calculated only for CHARGED PARTICLES,
but the influence of electromagnetism is WIDELY IGNORED. Prove that with
a grain of sand or a neutron.

>
Yes, there are scientists who are a little less stupid than the others
who no longer use this concept that should never have existed.
>
I think it is one of the stupidest and most fanatical concepts of the
theory of relativity. One day, it will disappear, perhaps thanks to
artificial intelligence that will come and stick its nose in it, and
joke about it; denouncing it as particularly stupid.
>
As for me, my hands are clean, I have been saying it for forty years,
with conviction and consistency.
>
I repeat it again here, it is NOT the mass that varies, but "the
impression of speed". The observer who measures the particles,
does not realize that the relativity of time, that is to say especially,
here, of the notion of simultaneity, makes him observe a false measurement.
I called this false measurement the obversible speed Vo relative to the
real speed Vr of the particle in the subject's frame of reference.
>
Let's give the particle its real speed, and everything is in order.
>
Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)  <--->  Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
>
p=m.Vr
E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)
Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]
>
In no case, in my life, have I ever posed m'=m/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
The concept is false and useless.
>
The absurd thought.
>
Does a hippopotamus become two hippos if we accelerate it?
>
No.
>
It increases its quantity of movement, it increases its overall energy,
it increases its kinetic energy. Not its "mass", nor its "electric charge".
>
R.H.