
Older Essays
This is Your Mind
Independence Day Special
2005
Copyright Issues Statement
Independence
Day Special 2011:
Jesus or
Ayn Rand?
Don't Blame Wall Street
Governments
and Individual Rights
Anarcho-Capitalism
rebuttal
Doctors and
Individual Rights
Internet
Freedom VS On-line Piracy
Laws
Must be Specific to Preserve Freedom
To Students of
Objectivism
Kant as Founder
of Modern Art
Thinking in
Terms of Principles
The Purpose of Art
On Objectivity -- The Method
of Thought
Applications of
Philosophy
Happiness by
a Proper Standard
Morality and War
Induction
and Anarchism
Immigration
and Applied Egoism
Independence
Day 2012:
Losing the Battle
On Civil Society
Batman and Justice
Paul Ryan and
Objectivism
Philosophy
in the Workplace
Articulating Freedom
The Argument for
Freedom
Psycho-epistemology
Black Friday Special,
The Morality of Profit
Intellectual
Property Rights
How The Internet
Works
Carnegie Museum of
Art and Natural History
The
Morality of Copyrights and Patents
Justice
Freedom of Speech -- a
Sacred Right
Objective Value
Teleological
Measurements
Induction
Causality
Cognition
Ayn Rand as a Moral
Hero
Moral Integrity
On Dualism
Protest NSA Spying
The Objectivist
Trilogy
The DIM Hypothesis
Tolerance and DIM
Individual Rights
How We Know
| | Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999
Relativistic Mass
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
While I agree that it is improper to define "mass" as "quantity
of matter," I was never taught that this is the way Newton
defined the term. In my research to find Newton's definition of
"mass," it is always defined as "quantity of resistance to
change of motion" (or "quantity of inertia"). This is the way it
is defined in the three physics text books I have at home, and
on the web under searches for Newton and mass. Could you provide
a reference to Newton specifically that defines "mass" as
"quantity of matter"?
The problem with defining "mass" as "quantity of matter" is the
implication that elementary particles (electrons, protons,
neutrons, etc.) are made of various numbers of smaller particles
each having the same mass. For instance, a proton is much more
massive than an electron, so to have the mass it has one would
have to say it is made up of many more "primary" constituents
than the electron (which may be why Lewis made his comment about
Aristotle's prime matter). However, there is no evidence for
this whatsoever.
I prefer the "resistance to change of motion" formulation, and
so I am not against the idea of relativistic mass (which is not
to say I agree with every aspect of Relativity). At high enough
(relative) velocities, it simply becomes more difficult to
change the motion of a body (including particles), which is my
understanding of that aspect of Relativity.
| |
|