Relativistic mass: real mass or mathematical concept

On Jun 2, 11:08 am, Amid wrote:

Does relativistic speed really increases the mass of a body?

The best interpretation to this is to treat mass as a observed
quantity mirroring that energy is an observed quantity as well.
shrug

Or is it
just a way to calculate particles at relativistic speeds.

shrug

I mean with this that if you send a particle at 0.99c does it attract
masses around it 7 times more?

Interestingly experimental results seem to indicate that the
gravitating mass is the rest mass of the gravitating body. shrug

It is most likely that mass does not have anything to do with
gravitation in which (G M) is merely a grossly simplified model
describing gravitation. shrug

In article posted Sat, 9 Jun 2012 20:45:15 -0700 (PDT) to sci.physics,
Koobee Wublee posted this..


On Jun 2, 11:08 am, Amid wrote:

Does relativistic speed really increases the mass of a body?

You can reformulate the question as
"Is observed body mass real body mass ?"

The best interpretation to this is to treat mass as a observed
quantity mirroring that energy is an observed quantity as well.
shrug

Or is it
just a way to calculate particles at relativistic speeds.

shrug

I mean with this that if you send a particle at 0.99c does it attract
masses around it 7 times more?

Interestingly experimental results seem to indicate that the
gravitating mass is the rest mass of the gravitating body. shrug

Rather
Gravitational mass
= Inertial mass
= total body mass
= rest / invariant body mass for body in the rest.

It is most likely that mass does not have anything to do with
gravitation in which (G M) is merely a grossly simplified model
describing gravitation. shrug



--
Poutnik

On Jun 10, 1:01 am, Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 2, 11:08 am, Amid wrote:

Does relativistic speed really increases the mass of a body?

You can reformulate the question as
"Is observed body mass real body mass ?"

Which is a moot point really. shrug

The best interpretation to this is to treat mass as a observed
quantity mirroring that energy is an observed quantity as well.
shrug

Interestingly experimental results seem to indicate that the
gravitating mass is the rest mass of the gravitating body. shrug

Rather
Gravitational mass
= Inertial mass
= total body mass
= rest / invariant body mass for body in the rest.

Gravitational mass drops out in the geodesic equations. However,
Koobee Wublee was talking about gravitating mass not gravitational
mass. Does Poutnik understand what Koobee Wublee means by gravitating
mass? shrug

It is most likely that mass does not have anything to do with
gravitation in which (G M) is merely a grossly simplified model
describing gravitation. shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Amid wrote:

Does relativistic speed really increases the mass of a body?

You can reformulate the question as
"Is observed body mass real body mass ?"

Which is a moot point really. shrug

The best interpretation to this is to treat mass as a observed
quantity mirroring that energy is an observed quantity as well.
shrug

Interestingly experimental results seem to indicate that the
gravitating mass is the rest mass of the gravitating body. shrug

Rather
Gravitational mass
= Inertial mass
= total body mass
= rest / invariant body mass for body in the rest.

Gravitational mass drops out in the geodesic equations. However,
Koobee Wublee was talking about gravitating mass not gravitational
mass. Does Poutnik understand what Koobee Wublee means by
gravitating mass? shrug

It is most likely that mass does not have anything to do with
gravitation in which (G M) is merely a grossly simplified model
describing gravitation. shrug

hanson wrote:
Interesting take & issue, KW. Keep on developing that.
It would be interesting too, to have Mike Varney, the
Martian Marvin onboard. He could demonstrate by
an equation set how "SR was the logical conclusion of
Maxwell equations", instead of just loud mouthing about
it.
Also Varney did an experiment on Newton's G. So, he
could also explain why Einstein still needed to retain G
in his GR field equations.
(Newton in his last Principia edition had a different equation
for G, then his now standard G= F*r^2/m*M. We talked
about that before in 2010/11. See archive)

Take care and have fun, old buddy.
hanson

In article posted Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) to
sci.physics.relativity,
Koobee Wublee posted this..


Interestingly experimental results seem to indicate that the
gravitating mass is the rest mass of the gravitating body. shrug

Rather
Gravitational mass
= Inertial mass
= total body mass
= rest / invariant body mass for body in the rest.

Gravitational mass drops out in the geodesic equations. However,
Koobee Wublee was talking about gravitating mass not gravitational
mass. Does Poutnik understand what Koobee Wublee means by gravitating
mass? shrug

Sorry, it was not distinguishable from a typo.

--
Poutnik