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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
