On Jan 23, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
I don't think it is generally accepted an more that m=m0*gamma
is a real effect. I definitely read that in some text.
I've also read that "m0*gamma" isn't "real" mass. I've also read
that time dilation is not "real". Both statements, as written, are
nonsensicle -- they are both meaningless.
To make them sensible statements you first must define "real".
Can you do that?
If you can, then you'll also be able to say definitively whether
either of those effects is "real".
But if you can't define "real" then any question about whether
something is "real" is meaningless.
Effects which are "real" are effects which can not be fully accounted
for by retardation. The effects which remain when clocks are brought
back together are therefore real. Any change in appearance, and that
includes locally observed forces as well as images, that is brought
back into balance upon return to the initial condition, is due to
retardation effects, delays in the communication of conditions. Real
effects are cumulative upon cyclical motion. Retardation effects do
not accumulate upon cyclical motion.
Horace Heffner
