From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: missing the point about mass (was: Einstein)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:18:41 -0700



----- Original Message -----
From: "michaelP" <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:32 AM
Subject: missing the point about mass (was: Einstein)


> on 20/9/03 6:01 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:
>
> > Better tell The Priest of On that if he has an atomic reactor up his
arse to
> > be very careful when he goes to the John
> > - it could make a terrible mess of  Holland!
>
> Jud, part of what Tude is on about is contained in the formula that leads
up
> to the famous(ly misunderstood) Einsteinian E=mc^2:
>
> a particle of 'rest' mass, M, moving (relative to an observer) at a
> velocity, V, shall for the observer, be seen as having a mass, m, equal
to:
>
> m=M*[(1-(v/c)^2) to the power minus one half], which to a first level of
> approximation given v much smaller than c (speed of light), is close to:
>
> m=M*(1+((v/c)^2))/2) = M + M*(((v/c)^2))/2), which is, as every
schoolperson

This is completely the case, since velocity of mechanical objects on earth
are vastly less than the speed of light, the Mass which is measured is
relatively constant within the inertial frame of reference; however Force is
not. If the object is not moving in the same inertial frame of reference it
will be observed to have no Force (mechanical force that is). It is when
there is a dynamic added into the equation is when there is Force, that is
some observed velocity. So therefore gravitational acceleration in the
earths' atmosphere will be a constant, even if the object is at rest on the
surface of the earth. Atomic mass is also constant depending only on the
mass of the atoms making up the object. Nevertheless it was Heidegger that
commented that physical theory, modern microphysics requires deductions
derived from ideal relations expressed in formal logic; thus
'being-in-the-world' is fallen only in one respect that only specialists can
approximate an interpretative understanding of the implications. If modern
physics was only theoretical, rather than practical, then the issue of
E=MC^2 would not be something fallen, as technology; but it is and it is
world and character forming, a principle element in 'being-there' as it is a
human way of being, a path, which the average person has little input into
and control (hence the desire of nations to create useful atomic energy
sources) (eg., Canada has the highest per capita rate of nuclear wastes in
the world), but only 14 % of Canadas' publically available energy is coming
from nuclear energy. What do we do where there is no consensus on what
method of energy production is sustainable? Why do polls consistently report
that local populatons prefer wind generation to any other type of large
scale energy production? But the governing powers still insist on a very
problematic risky method of generation.

John


> doing physics knows as the original mass plus the kinetic energy due to
> motion.
>
> In other words, the increase in (kinetic) energy due to motion is
equivalent
> to an increase in mass given by the Lorentzian Transformation (equally
> responsible for the changes in length and duration experienced by an
> observer in relative motion to the observed; the important point being
that
> these are NOT changes in the observed, that length, duration and mass are
> not invariant features of the observed at all, but relative to the
> observer's state of motion).
>
> regards
>
> mP
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---