Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Have a look at
>
> http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Nothing/WhereLaws.pdf
>
I'm still having a little trouble with the argument. Going into page
24, we have operationally defined p, E and m (ie no necessarily equal
to the physical values).
On page 24, Stengar demonstrates the classical relativity
relationships:
E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2 c^4
and things like
p -> mv, for v<<c ( where m is op. defined)
E -> mc^2 + .5 mv^2
However, there is nothing stopping m being a nonlinear function of the
real mass of an object (nothing fixes the dimensions of p or E, for
instance).
If it could be demonstrated that the operationally defined m _must be_
proportional to the object's real mass, then the argument is clinched,
since all else are arbitrary constants.
This presentation is just a slightly more sophisitcated version of
Stengar's.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Sep 08 2002 - 21:52:13 PDT