Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Analogies don't make good scientific arguments.
Let's go back to your original statement.
Unfortunately you just can't pick and choose what's real and what's an illusion. Why should the energy contribution from mass be considered "more real" than the KE.
In fact your line of reasoning contradicts the conservation of relativistic mass.
Regards
Steven
|
I probably didn't word my original statement as good as I should've
.
Analogies quite often are the only things you have to go by until evidence comes to light which either proves or disproves what you've found. They're only used as examples of what is likely, not what is certain.
I wasn't picking and choosing what was real or illusion. I said that the relativistic mass was illusional...an so was the infinite mass value. The KE is real, but the increase in mass due to the motion of the body in question was illusional and only based on the PoV of an outside observer.