home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16 / NN_1992_16.iso / spool / sci / physics / 11743 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-07-27  |  950 b   |  24 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.physics
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!news
  3. From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
  4. Subject: Re: Converting the masses
  5. Message-ID: <1992Jul27.190551.5279@sfu.ca>
  6. Sender: news@sfu.ca
  7. Organization: Simon Fraser University
  8. References: <n0596t@ofa123.fidonet.org> <mcirvin.711489157@husc10><9868@sun13.scri.fsu.edu <mcirvin.711903684@husc8>
  9. Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:05:51 GMT
  10. Lines: 12
  11.  
  12. In article <mcirvin.711903684@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
  13. writes:
  14.  
  15. >Wellll, if you define F as dp/dt instead, and then define inertial
  16. >mass by the formula p = mv, then the total energy
  17. >(or "relativistic mass") *does* become exactly the "inertial mass."
  18. >But I still don't think this should be used in physics classes.
  19.  
  20. Then you adopt a different convention. My point is that using the
  21. term "mass" in this way is not "wrong". It is currently unconventional.
  22.  
  23. Leigh
  24.