0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
It's in no way worthless Pete, although the math you use in the pdf only will be understood by a selected few here. After all, you refer to Einsteins field equations and fluids. Break it down as good as you can, to keep it reader friendly you might want to explain the way you yourself started to wonder about it, when you first wanted a discussion opened about the modern definition of 'mass', what you want to be referred to as its 'proper mass', if I get you right?
I agree. Edit it for the audience and post it. The only way to know what will happen is to post it and see what happens.
If people don't agree with your viewpoint and they probably wont, or you wouldn't be posting in new theories, ...
The things I post, lack the mathematical proof but are normally very simple ideas, as simply put as I can. I still get the impression that most people don't have a clue what I am talking about but without feedback I am unsure.
Quote from: butchmurray on 02/05/2012 22:16:37I agree. Edit it for the audience and post it. The only way to know what will happen is to post it and see what happens. How would I know who the audience of the post is or what their training in relativity is as well as their training in the related math?
Yeah Pete. keep it as simple and sweet as you can. Doesn't mean that you should avoid mathematics though, but make it worth to read for those that doesn't have the math skills too. Physics ain't easy, but it's the best game in town.
The subject of this thread is On the concept of relativistic mass which is located at ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN. I am the author of this article.The purpose of this thread is to determine the usefulnes of posting this article, or something similar, when I a new thead is started in the physics forum with the same or similar subject. To date the article as seemed worthless, perhaps for the following reasons;1) The posters in those threads do not have a level of understanding of the physics involved which is required in understanding the article.2) The posters in those threads do not have a level of understanding of the mathematical physics which is needed to understand the article.3) The posters do not find the article to be of any worth.4) Something else which I haven't been unable to determine as of yet.It seems only natural that if someone doesn't understand the material required to understand the article then they might feel inadequate in responding to the content of the article. Many-a-time I myself have felt inadequate, and for that reasona ashamed to responding to it. Perhaps to the level I am not up to in order to understanding the material.It'd be nice to have a better understanding of these scenarios so that the next time the topic, or something similar, I/we cold have a better way to help the poster asking the question.There are two problems that exist in posting the article (1) I write another article but leave the math out or (2) I write another article leaving the math in but downplay the physics.Any thoughts as to a resolution of this problem?
The way I see it is Math is a language, the best there is for science.
I would not say speculative as they are based on sound principles.Many theories that rely heavily on the Math content are and have been speculative.
There is not enough math in there either. I'd think about more math in a future presentation. Just some friendly criticism.
Well, how much math should there be? Just as you have it, no more and no less?
PMB,In the ARXIV article, you talk about active and passive gravitational masses. I believe they must always be equal. Otherwise, momentum would not be conserved.
If A pulls on B harder than B pulls on A, then B's momentum will change more than A's momentum changes.
Do you claim that momentum is not conserved?
How else can active and passive gravitational masses be unequal?