RE: Einstein was right- Scientists proved Theory of relativity

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Einstein was right- Scientists proved Theory of relativity

in science •  8 years ago 

What you say in the middle of your post is not entirely true. Mass is well defined.
It is an intrinsic property of any particle or object. Relativity only concerns space and time that are thus not absolute.

Special relativity is used for decades in calculations and it works damned well. A couple of predictions of general relativity have been recently observed in data and were still pending to be confirmed experimentally. On the other hand, it is good to keep in mind that the doors for alternative theories are still open. If I got it right, you mention one of these observations that are in agreement with general relativity predictions, don't you?

Maybe could you provide the sources where you read the info, so that I could have a deeper look and give more details?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

All masses are not Well define, you can't 100% precisely mesure any object mass, so its not absolute.

What you state is incorrect.

As I said, the mass is a property of any particle. An error on a measurement is one thing, and you can make an error in measuring a mass. This is right. But the mass itself is always well defined.

This is also what special relativity tells us. If you take any elementary particle, its mass is one of its properties. The mass of the photon is zero, no matter what you try.

All you said is correct, but here we speak about theory of relativity so rest mass is absoulte, but relativistic mass is not As the name suggest

The relativistic mass is a confusing concept that should be avoided at all cost.

Physicists use the wording mass for the invariant mass or an object, or its rest mass. This consists of an intrinsic property of it.

What is abusively called the relativistic mass is nothing but another name for the energy of the object (divided by the speed of light squared). Therefore, it is better to use the wording energy instead.

I hope this clarifies.

Absolutley..also, I express better on my languange- so, if you speak croatian we can have better discusion 😂😂😂
But, I agreed with you, energy is better choice.

I can speak English, French, a little bit of German and a little bit of Dutch,. Therefore... sorry ;)

Its forgiven..Thanks for some great inputs...As I Said on beggining of my post- im not educated in science so This comes As a little class for me ☺️

The purpose of my comment was not to attack you, but to help making the point clear. It is my pleasure helping people in this way :)