pmb

See? That sabatical ended up being less than a week long. It's my belief that since I now said my piece to whom I was frustrated with then I don't need to bother with it again. Hopefully the forums nature to ingnore errors will be the way to go. That's the rule of thumb I got from all the people here that I've spoken with, who shall remain nameless. Personally I think its a bad mistake. It'd confuse newbies. But I'm not going to take responsibility for others actions so I'll state my piece and leave it alone. I don't have the physical strength to keep making arguments everytime I see them. There are way too many. Plus its easier this way. Best wishes to all, Pete

I never showe you where that expression came from. I posted a derivation which was similar to Einstein's in essense. It's at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm It goes like this. In frame S a body emits a two photon of equal enegy in opposite directions. In a frame moving relative to that frame we see the same thing. This time the photons don't have the same energy. They therefore don't have the same momentum. The sum of the momenta of the two photons yields a total momentum which is non-zero. This means that the momentum of the box decreases. This means that the body's mass decreased. Since the speed can be arbitrarily small the mass of the body decreases. Relativity is used to find a relationship between the energy lost E and the mass lost m. That relationship is E = mc2. I think that there is another derivation which proves the generality of that expression.

John Wheeler was seconded only by Albert Einstein in 20th century physics. If physicists and chemists didn't appreciate his work then they just didn't read it. It's just that simple. Your impressions about this "course grained" nonsense is just empty gibber-jabberging that shouldn't even be acknowledged.

Well this post is a good excuse as any to come back from my sabatical. What you claimed about Einstein (but again never proved) is wrong. In one of his early articles published between 1906 and 1908 Einstein said that radiation density (aka light) has mass density. This is the same thing that Alan Guth still uses in his cosmology course. The term you're looking for is ignorant which means having a lack of knowledge. When people go to college they gather information/knowledge. They don't get smarter for the most part. There is a small increase in IQ in that the educated man has a better ability to present a more logical an argument than the uneducated person. I disagree. It sure does get affected by gravity. In a uniform gravitational field a beam of light is still deflected and in such a field the spactime curvature is zero. That is very very true. And anyone who reads Einstein's relativity book will learn that Einstein never said that gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Einstein disagreed with that interpretation.

juan - I suggested to you several posts back that you read Rohlichs text. You gave no hint whatsoever that you even heard of it. Only several days later, perhaps after you got a copy from the library did you acknowledge that you had it. Then you claim I was wrong? Nope. I don't buy it. There is nothing about the entire situation that would make me believe you. IT goes against your track record. It'd be easier fopr everyont if you just told the truth instead of worrying about making a mistake. Nobody cares if you make a mistake. What people do care about is when you make a mistake and then lie to cover it up You claimed that the momentum I was talking about was canonical momentum, which as anyone can see, is a wrong assertion. Nobody should ever have assumed that when someone writes p = mv that its supposed to mean canonical momentum. That's just bad juju. This is the most perfect example of a strawman that I've ever seem. Bad juju!!! Nobody was talking about electrons juan. It was you who brought it up, not I. That action is a logical fallacy known as a strawman. In any case the expression p = mv always holds true, by definition mind you!!!! This is the mechanical momentum of the particle. It should never be confused with canonical momentum such as you did. The terms in the expression are defined as follows (using bold symbols this time for precission). For a charged particle of charge e p = 3-momentum v = 3-velocity m = inertial mass p = mv = mechanical momentum P = p + (e/c)A = canonical momentum where Pj = @L/@vj Never confuse P with p since that'd be a very serious mistake. Had you read my paper on the subject of mass in relativity then you'd have known all this and not made this mistake. And I wrote that paper a very long time ago so don't try to take credit for anything I speak of regarding canonical momentum and its relationship to mechanical momentum. It's all right here http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687 Please stop passing off your mistakes as someone elses

That's kind of you to say. Funny part of all of this is that I injured my back just as I was going back to work. I was actually alrady disabled due to the attack of Leukemia. Sheesh! I should never have tried to go back to work. LOL!!

I'm now on Suboxone. That means that I'm in mild to moderate pain but only if I don't leave the house, wherein it gets much worse. And people don't understand why I get irritated easily!! lol!! Now I'm told I am at high risk for diabetes and it I don't eat better and get more exericise I'll most likely to contract it. There's a catch 22 for ya! Then again I'd wager that with diabetes it'd be easier to commit suicide.

I doubt it. Yes. In fact I tried it back in February. I have a damaged spinal cord (four herniated disks) and the pain was too much to live with. I begged doctors for help but they ignored my pleas. So I took a razor and sliced my throat open. In a moment of weakness I called my oncologist to take one last shot at getting help. That plea went unheard yet again. Byt he police came, busted down the floor and then I ended up in a VA nut house for a month. Yes. But only in cases like mine, i.e. when you're suffering far too much with no end in site. I still wish my first attempt back in 2000 failed. I could have missed all that suffering in the mean time. Man-O-Man, you can't believe the amount of pain you can get when you have a herniated disk. Its freaky bad! I heard that too. Perhaps smart people are tired of being around so many people who aren't as smart as they are.

Are you intentionally breaking forum rules or are you just ignorant of them? I'd say a combination of both. See http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules and http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/ Many of the people in this thread have broken one or more of the forum rules. It's the lack of enforcement that drove me away. It'd be silly for me to want to be around so many of the flammers I now see in this thread. There are so many greener pastures on the internet. Too many flamers in this one with no policing to take action against flamers and trollers. Please grow up and learn to be an adult by learning how to accept criticism without attacking the messanger. And never ask why people leave here. You've just shown them why they should.

Seems that this is a good thread to investigate things I'm curious about. I guess my sabatical will onbly apply to the physics forum for the present moment. timo - You claim to have no clue who I am. What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you irritaing because, since you believe I'm new here that I have no right to complain of this place? Just because you don't know who I am it doesn't mean that I hafven't been here that long. You made a mistake in your belief of how long I've been here. What you don't know is that I joined this forum only six months after you did, back in December 2004 and stayed for several years (not sure exactly how man). I decided to take my leave of this forum for a few years to c;ear my irritation I had with someone. When I came back I found that the problem remains and has new problems (new trolling pest). You might not know me but there are others here who do whom I know from other forums. When came back to this forum I decided not to hold grudges. I hate grudges. It's too imature. It's unfortunate that so many people need to hold onto their grudges. The internet is a different animal than talking to someone in person. Perceptions get distorted when peple put their thoughts in writing. It's unfortunate that very very few people take this into account. Do you recall me posting here in the mid 2000s? I posted under the handle Pete. That's why your impression of me only being here two months is so inaccurate. What I have learned, though, is that since I've taken a new way of posting I've altered people's perception of me. Here's what I learned;What I found irritating in the posting style of others I aso noticed in mine. Of course that bothered me so I changed my writing style. Howver I myself never changed. E.g I still have a difficult time letting forum pests get to me. It was very minor change too. All I did was not directly tell people they were wrong or anything like that. I'd merely start my response with a derivation which contadicts theirs and since I didn't tell them "You're wrong!" it worked out well. People don't like being told their wrong. Leave that out and you'll leave a much better impession on people. Try it folks! The reason I vent my objections goes back to that quote I keep bringing up. Unfortunately people have the tendancy to ignore the things on the intenet that make discussion boards/newsgrpoups/forums irritating. Many simly leave because of it, making no noise when they do. If people did make a noise then we'd know why people we liked left without a word. So what happens? What is left of a forum when all these decent people leave? So nobody has a right to complain if they make attempt to fix the problem themselves. There is lot of power in words. For example; when trollers are littering threads with nonsense, actions should be taken to halt it, e.g by altering the rules to prohibit it. When a person is making no positive contribution to a thread but spends all their time trying to force their views/opinions on you. Then the right action should be to actively alter the rules as years go by by taking into what they've learned from their attempts to make things better. This is how and why new laws are made. Ever wonder why Sates made laws such as to prohibit things like loitering, or litterting, or flse advertising etc.? It's to make the world a better place. That's how you interpret it. Others may use it to spite people who they don't like. I know of several people whom I believe would use it like that had they posted here. Let's take a vote. When you see a number associated with a person's reputation do you think 1) That is a reflection only of the people who contribute to voting on the reputation 2) That it is a reflection of the people doing the voting on the persons posts only 3) That it is a reflection of the person themselves 4) It all depends on each vote since everyone is different. Where is the rules which tell you what the purpose of voting up a post is for?

Before I go on with what could be an invalid assumption. let me ask you this; Do you know what purpose the internet had before these forums got overloaded with crackpots? The newsgroups are almost useless now. The last time I checked it was overloaded with advertisements. For those who don't know then let me explain. The Internet began with the development of computers in the 1950s. This began with communications between mainframe computers and terminals. This allowed scietists, engineers and other goups to exchange information and ideas. It was the forerunner of a physics forum. It was a very safe place and very easy place to discuss things without nutcases ruining it. Scientists thus found it nice to use. Back then it was very serious buisness. When Talor and Wheeler were writing their text Exploring Black Holes it was vey useful to discuss the phsics in e-mail rather than mailing corrections or ideas. That was very serious business too. Now there's another version comming out and e-mail will be used a more directed sense so that will be very serious buisness too. Here, people come to learn about physics. To ask people they thought they could ask a queston in peace and discuss the subject matter without a debate going on in each and every thread. So that kind of action, these damn debates in every thread, can ruin it for the newbie. What used to be a very serious place to discuss very interesting ideas is thus made near trash by those nutcases. Yes. There is rarely any serious buisness here. But there should be. I created a challenge for people regarding a mass density problem. Some cracpots showed they didn't understand the physics and ended up posting nonsense. Then there were people who truley wanted to find the answer out. I sent those people answers in e-mail as I noted. It was a fun learning experience for several people. So yeah. It has the ability to do some serious buisness. But not with the ignoring cracpots in threads where they have a tendacy to make bogus claims. How are the newbies to determine what is what? I've had enough of this bickering as you folks are doing even in this thread. Lord! All I wanted to do is state why I was leaving, and it wasn't for pretty reasons, and then say I'd be back and to e-mail me if they needed me. And look what was made of this thread! Oy! And you can't determine how long I've been herre by looking at my data. I was here a long time ago (2004? 2006?) and was posting for a ling time. The same person who irritating actions drove me away. His actions (including lack of them) is once again adding to drive away again. When I came back from the first sabatical I forgot that I was posting here. So I created a new account (the old one was deleted). This time I wanted to keep in touch with the nice people I've met. I don';t like forgetting nice people. Any more complaints, please take them to the Principle's Office.

Before I go on with what could be an invalid assumption. let me ask you this; Do you know what purpose the internet had before these forums got overloaded with crackpots? The newsgroups are almost useless now. The last time I checked it was overloaded with advertisements. For those who don't know then let me explain. The Internet began with the development of computers in the 1950s. This began with communications between mainframe computers and terminals. This allowed scietists, engineers and other goups to exchange information and ideas. It was the forerunner of a physics forum. It was a very safe place and very easy place to discuss things without nutcases ruining it. Scientists thus found it nice to use. Back then it was very serious buisness. When Talor and Wheeler were writing their text Exploring Black Holes it was vey useful to discuss the phsics in e-mail rather than mailing corrections or ideas. That was very serious business too. Now there's another version comming out and e-mail will be used a more directed sense so that will be very serious buisness too. Here, people come to learn about physics. To ask people they thought they could ask a queston in peace and discuss the subject matter without a debate going on in each and every thread. So that kind of action, these damn debates in every thread, can ruin it for the newbie. What used to be a very serious place to discuss very interesting ideas is thus made near trash by those nutcases. Yes. There is rarely any serious buisness here. But there should be. I created a challenge for people regarding a mass density problem. Some cracpots showed they didn't understand the physics and ended up posting nonsense. Then there were people who truley wanted to find the answer out. I sent those people answers in e-mail as I noted. It was a fun learning experience for several people. So yeah. It has the ability to do some serious buisness. But not with the ignoring cracpots in threads where they have a tendacy to make bogus claims. How are the newbies to determine what is what? I've had enough of this bickering as you folks are doing even in this thread. Lord! All I wanted to do is state why I was leaving, and it wasn't for pretty reasons, and then say I'd be back and to e-mail me if they needed me. And look what was made of this thread! Oy!

That's the supposed usage of it. That doesn't mean they use it like that. Consider this thread. You can't seperate what I said from me the person so the number reflects what people judge about me. What is at my heart is that there is a troller who post erroneous claims against my last post I make. I had an open mind form much much longer than I should have. After I realized he made an error in nearly every post he makes I decided not to respond. That didn't mean he stopped making bogus assertions. Now they are just going uncorrected. So be it. I'm leaving for a short time for a good reason. I hope people don't think that I tell them everything that goes into my decision making process.

Decided to delete content I gotta tell ya. These reputation notes are quite irritating. I can't stand being in a place where they rate me as a person. Perhaps I won't be back. I've always wanted to create my own and I can afford it now. We'll see.

I am rewriting an earlier part of this thread because michel really wanted me to. Since he was very polite when he asked in a PM to me I thought I’d do it just for michel’s sake! qft1234. This was what I was trying to get through to you earlier. Let g = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2), b = v/c, m = inertial mass for v << c. m is also called the proper mass or rest mass) of the particle. I prefer the term proper mass since the term "rest mass" cannot literally be applied to particles at rest and a photon can never be at rest. Let M = gm be the inertial mass of a particle for any speed. It can be shown that the momentum of a classical point particle is (see http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/inertial_mass.htm) 1) p = Mv = gmv The energy is 2a) E = Mc2 = gmc2 or 2b) E = Mc2 = gE0 where E0 is called the proper energy of the particle Eq. (2a) can be rewritten to as 3) g = E/mc2 Substitue Eq.(3) into Eq. (1) to obtain 4) p = mvg = mv(E/mc2) = mv(E/mc2) = vE/c2 Multiply Eq(4) through by c to obtain 5) pc = Ev/c This can be rewritten as 6) pc/E = v/c A luxon is a particle that always travels at the speed of light. For such a particle v = c. Substitute into Eq. (6) to get (this is really a limiting process) 7) pc/E = 1 ===> E = pc Solve Eq. (2) for M to get M = E/c2 and then plug this result into Eq. (1) to get 8) p = (E/c2)v Multiply through by c to obtain 9) pc = Ev/c = Eb Square both sides to get 10) E2b2 = (pc)2 Now subtract E2 from both sides and rearrange to get 11) E2 - E2b2 = E2 - (pc)2 Factor E2 out of the left side to get 12) E2(1 - b2)2 = E2 - (pc)2 Note that g2 = 1/(1-b2) ==> (1 - b2) = 1/g2 13) E2/g2)2 = E2 - (pc)2 Note that E2/g2 = m2c4. We finally have 14a) E2 - (pc)2 = m2c4 = (mc2)2 or 14b) E2 - (pc)2 = (E02[/sup])2 Recall that for a luxon v = c. If we take the limit in Eq. (14) for v --> c we find 16) m = 0 This is what it means for a luxon to have zero proper mass. Of course this results holds for photons. People often get rid of the adjective "proper" and say "photons have zero mass". Recall the expression for momentum in Eq. (1), p = Mv. Let v = c to get p = Mc. Therefore M = p/c. Substitute p = E/c to get M = E/c2. For a photon E = hf where h = Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. We now have M = hf/c2 which means that a photon has inertial mass. So the two expressions for the mass of a luxon is Proper Mass: m = 0 Inertial Mass: M = p/c = M = E/c2 = hf/c2 Connection between E, p and m: E2 - (pc)2 = (mc2)2 Sorry juan, but a I already explained, I can't keep up with all the mistakes you keep making. See you after my sabatical. I'll see you but that'll be about it. Glad to see you got that book from te library and chose to learn from it. Can this really be true or were you just seeing how wrong you were! Hmmmmm.

Hi folks, I've decided to take a sabatical from this forum. Just too many rude people around (I just got a rude PM from a moderator whom I never really liked anyway) and don't wish to be around that kind of people so I won't be around for a perhaps long while. There are other forums where the Admit actually admire me. So there are plenty of forums to be of help in. I just don't won't subject myself to the nasty people I've run into here. I made a lot of friends so please feel free to email me. I won't be checking my PMs. Later gators.

When I wote "there are no errors" I assumed Ityped everything in write. You never had to make such a big deal out of it. I already said you were right michel. I admitted that I made a mistake the first time you pointed it out. You're now getting carried away. To much at this point with no gain. Moving on: I wanted to get back to the concept of bare mass that I touched on earlier. Again I want to warn everyone that this is about classical EM and the classical electron/charge. Somewhere in this thread or the original one I explained that the contribution of the Coulomb field to the mass of a charged particle is expressed as follows. From Rohrlich's text top of page 137, and using Rohrlich's notation m = mbare + mCoul The first term is defined as the bare mass of the electron, i.e. the mass the particle would have if there it was uncxharged. I originally expressed as dm since that's how its often expressed. Rohrlich uses different notation. m is what is known as the proper mass of the electron.

I did a bit of foot work for you. See http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66737-what-is-mass/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66669-photons/ To be more precise, the source of gravity is mass, of which there are three kinds. These are useful to know if you're studying cosmology. E.g. see the definitions in Peebles text on cosmology on pages 269 Eq. (10.70) and page 453 Eq. (18.02). Peebles uses a perfect fluid as an example. Peebles gives expressions which he identifies as the active gravitational mass density, passive gravitational mass density and inertial mass density. The later two have the same value. The following defines those terms 1) Inertial mass - T he mass of a body as determined by its momentum For those of you who have trouble with this as the definition of inertial mass then please note that its not something I conjured up. Although I've been saying that this is the definition all along that its what I learned from relativity texts and mechanics texts and ajournal articles. Please see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inertial+mass 2) Active gravitational mass - The source of gravity 3) Passive gravitational mass - That on which gravity acts on. If I can find out how to post Latex then I'll quote the equations. Can someone tell me where there is a Latex tutorial? I think there's one on this site but I don't know how to find it.

Most of us here are quite familiar with expression such as 1/0. But you didn't prove, o even explain, your assertion that it means what you claim it means is. In a forum like this it is desirable to have people back up their assertions. So while I respond to this post perhaps you can prove what you said about its consequence. 1/0: It mathematics we say that its an undefined quantity. So claiming that it is not infinity is unfounded. Consider the following expressions: 1) f(x) = 1 + x 2) g(x) = x 3) h(x) = f(x)/g(x) Are you familiar with what a limit is? If so then take the limit x--> 0 h(x). This does not yeild a meaningful quantity since the limit does approach infinity. It's meaningless to say it is either infinite or not infinite or anything else. That's the only kind meaning that you can give 1/0.

My friend told me that this text is available online. He said he just googled the name and author and found it. I'm not having as much luck. I'd like to find this so I can refer it to someone who could use an online journal. Pete

I believe that there are a few other threads on this subject. Have you seem them? They might contain something you're interested in.

All components of the stress-energy-momentum tensor contribute to the source of gravity. Stress is a source of inertia so it follows that its also a source of gravity. In the special case it is well noted that pressure is a source of gravity.

swansont = Please delete my post. Note: See proper mass at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

That depends on what you mean by the term mass. Does light have inertial mass? Yes. Does light have proper mass? No. However there are circumstances in which it can be said that the rest mass of light is zero. Consider a gas of massless photons. The gas will have a frame in which the total momentum of the photons is zero. The mass of the system of photons will then equal the total energy of the photons divided by c2. So in this case the light has non-zero rest mass. I have a set of lecture notes from a course that Alan Guth teaches. In it he says that light has mass since it has energy. Guth is a smart man. The course is the about the early universe. In a course like that its useful to think of light having mass. See also http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html Gravity doesn't always bend spacetime. That only happens when there are tidal gradients present. In a uniform gravitational fiel the spacetime is zero and yet light is deflected by the gravitational field. The equivalence principle states that inertial mass is proportional to gravitational mass. For this reason all particles fall at the same rate. It is this reason why geodesics can be created in which light is deflected, and again, that's because it has mass. Consider Feynman's view on this. From the Feynman Lectures, Vol-I, page 7-11

This will end here. In the following post I use the symbol "m" to mean inertial mass (aka relativisic mass) defined by m = p/v In a previous post I told juan that I was wrong. It’s very difficult to not accidently read posts which are in a thread when you’re reading the thread. Circumstance requires that I post in order for me to be right with my conscious. The circumstance is that it appears, very much so, that juan is not being honest in his responses and is utilizing a strawman to argue some of his claims. This means that juan is using a logical fallacy of the strawman which is a violation of the forum rules. From that comment its obvious that you either didn't understand it or didn't read it. Rohrlich wouldn’t put out a new edition and keep parts which are outdated. No author would. (1) First off I find it extremely difficult to believe that you've ever heard of Rohrlich's text, never mind have it right at your side and know as fact what Rohrlich's stand on Poincare stress is. You never demonstrated that you even knew what the ineria of stress is, never mind Poincare stress. Feynman's text explains the same thing about a classical electron in terms of classical mechanics. You have demonstrated a tendancy not to learn about the inertia of stress. When I asked you about an article on the subject I could send you you said no. That's an important article for someone who doesn't understand the inertia of stress. You wouldn't even consider it when you failed at your attempt at solving the mass density of the magnetic field. The resolution to understanding the solution is to undestand the inertia of stress. (2) Another reason that I don't trust you is because of your total dismissal of that text. Fine, don't read it. Who cares? But don't claim that you have. In this case you claimed that Rohlich's text agrees with you 100%. All you did was to make a claim that he agrees with you and, as usual, never proved it. You're in the habit of never backing up what you claim. Do you know how irritating that is? You have this bad habit of assuming that merely stating what you believe is considered poof. Example: You claimed that, for an electron, p = mv is wrong and then didn't even back up your claim. You later made an attempt and said something about it and it was then that you explained about the electron being in an EM field. I.e. Here you're responding with a strawman again. I never said that the electron was in an electromagnetic field. That's what a strawman is. I say one thing and then you claim I said another thing and attempt to prove that other thing wrong. The second part which I underlined is just plain nonsense as anyone can tell. However under any circumstances p = mv, is valid. Now that you said that it's clear that you don't kow what you're talking about very clearly. What you've demonstrated that you're thinking about is that when I said mv = momentum you mistook it as the canonical momentum of the electron. What has changed is that the mechanical momentum would be the same with or without the EM field but the canonicalmomentum is a function of the presence of the magntic field. E.g. if there is an electromagnetic field then the canonical momentum of an electron in such a field is given by Mechanical Momentum = p = mv Canonical Momentum = Pi = @L/@vi = mv/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2) + (e/c) Ai (3) The name of the text is Classical Charged Particles. This is not about quantum mechanics of an charged particle. Poincare stress applies here. You ignored that fact. Big mistake. (4) You already demonstrated that you are unaware of the inertia of stress. For that reason I know you didn’t read Rohrlich’s text since you have to know about the inertia of stress in order to follow his derivations. (5) Time to tell the audience the definition of Poincare Stress. From Oxford Dictionary of Physics: Poincaré Stresses - Notice the part where it says Considerations such as these are now thought to be irrelevant, as it is accepted that an electron should be described by quantum electrodynamics rather than classical field theory. What you ignored here is that the name of Rohrlich's text “Classical Charged Particles” (note the “classical” part) tells you that the subject of Poincare stress is classical and that the subject matter of the author's text is classical mechanics. (6) Poincare stresses apply to the momentum of a classical electron. Stress contributes to inertia as I've tried to explain to you many times, but for which you keep ignoring. (7) By definition, the momentum and mass of a particle is given by p = mv. That is to say that m is defined such that for particles which interact only by contact that mv is a conserved quantity. Momentum p is then defined as p = mv. (8) You claim that Rohrlich agrees with you, yet, again, you provide no proof and expect us to take your word on it. Sorry. I don't trust you at this point. Either you had the text at hand and chose not to quote or you didn't have the text at hand and are claiming you knew it from memory. (9) I'm quite different from you. I prove what I assert. From page 16 Rohrlich writes in the last paragaph And that shoots down your claim about not being used in over a hundred years. I see it used quite often. I read an article not too long ago by David Griffiths on the topic. (10) In this thread you claimed Wow! You are sooo wrong that its safe to say that your claim is just total nonsense. The term proper mass is a widely known term in the field of relativiy. It's found in most SR/GR texts. Modern ones too. You just keep thinking that it doesn't appear in QFT or QM then it doesn't exist. Boy! How wrong you are. I doubt you even know QFT. Moden Usage: Rindlers SR/GR text defines it as does. D'Inverno's as well. And those texts were published in the last decade. And again - nobody cares what you use I can't fathom why you keep bringing it up when you've beat that horse to death already. (11) Modern usage: From Mass renormalization in classical electrodynamics, David J. Griffiths and Russell E. Owen, Am. J. Phys. 51(12), December 1983 And I was curious as to how it's applied now so I asked Griffith himself who returned my e-mail saying If I was going to be blind and wipe my memory of this subject cleen, then I'd take Rohrlich and Griffiths over you, who can't seem to provide a logical proof of anything people have asked of you. All you do is show one instance of something and expect people to accept that as proof that it holds in all cases. That to me is nonsense. (12) Then there is your constant use of a strawmen (which the board keeps ignoring for some reason). For some reason you got it into your head that you had to force your beliefs on me regarding what the term "mass" is. You argue your point that everyone who uses the stanard model uses what you do. Well big deal. Nobody cares. I don't even disagree with it. Although I challenged to you prove it because I kew you couldn't. It's just fun to watch. When it comes to particle physics its best to stick with proper mass. And you insist that everyone in relativity uses it and for some reason you'll keep at it, badering me by keep repeating your claim until you get what you want - to force me to believe what you believe. You pointed to a GR book which uses only proper mass, as if that was proof of something to me. You can't logically point to a single, or few, examples of what you said and then expect someone that everone uses it. I just told you I got a new text, published 2004, which uses inertial mass. 13) Basically you keep wanting to prove to me that everyone in the Standard Model uses proper mass rather than inertial mass. I never said otherwise. When you keep claiming that you've proved theory X and never argued X then you just used a strawman. That's a logical fallicy, and that's prohibited on the forum. 14) Otherwise I said that people in GR and cosmology tend to use inertial mass and gave you several examples to back up what I sai and you promptly ignored it for no reason other than you were unable to admit you were wrong. If you ca't admit your mistake then just let it go and stop using a strawman in an attempt to save face. This is the reason I said I won't read your posts. There are far too many errors to correct. It was dumb of me to assume I wouldn't read them because they're mixed in with all the other ones. Oh well. I might have to read part of them in the passing out of the corner of my eye but I'll have to live with the challenge of restraining myself from all the errors you make from misconceptions to logical fallacies.