[General] relativistic mass

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Martin,

I fully agree with your paper; however, I was asking a different question
on what I think is a related subject. Unfortunately, I did not give the
adequate context. I don't think that you understood what I was asking.

The context:

   1. An accelerated electron radiates EM energy.
      - often this EM energy can be measured as radiation separated from
      the electron
      - is it always so? or can the EM energy be bound to the electron in
      the same manner as that from a constantly accelerated atomic
electron that
      is constantly emitting radiation (a la Maxwell) that does not leave the
      source.
      2. When the acceleration stops,
   - does the radiation field go/decay to zero?
      - or does the bound radiation simply stop increasing?
      - in a lossless system, how does a standing wave diminish?
      3. I contend the latter and the* bound radiation increase is
   reflected in the relativistic increase in mass (gamma).*
      - My question was related to any publications that might support my
      claim.
      4. neutrons, being neutral, are not expected to radiate when
   accelerated.
      - nevertheless, they experience a relativistic increase in mass with
      velocity.
      - would this argue against my claim above or against the concept that
      the neutron is really neutral (and not just 'net' neutral)?
   5. Now that it is known that neutrons have a charge distribution:
      - can we assume that, when accelerated, they have a bound-radiation
      EM field?
      6. In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is
   converted to relativistic mass (as they come together) & then to radiation.
      - is the relativistic mass actually bound radiation?
      - since net energy does not change in the annihilation process, the
      conversion of rest mass (an expression of the Coulomb potential) to EM
      radiation is continuous until the mass and potential are gone.
      - I have an unpublished paper on this process, if anyone is
      interested.
      7. The story and its implications continue.

Andrew
_________________________
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
> The paper "light is heavy" is no more, and no less, than a supposedly
> didactic and the only consistent explanation of special relativity and its
> consequences. Most important points are that there are some confusions:
> 1) mass is not matter
> 2) energy is equivalent, exactly the same as, mass: E=mc^2
> 3) light is massive, both in the inertial and gravitational sense, as is
> obvious from experiment
> 4) the greatest confusion is about light being massless, which indeed it
> would be if it couldn't/didn't move. The whole point is that light is
> always moving at the speed of light, so it is a non-existing limit.
>
> Weighing a box with a molecular gas, or that of a "photon" gas give the
> same kind of result: the gravitational mass of the gas plus the weight of
> the box. Light is gravitationally deflected by large masses,
> experimentally. Light carries momentum and energy.
>
> There is nothing new in what i say, it is consistent with Einsteinian
> relativity an represents the vision of Herman weyl too, and many others
>
> Best, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> > Op 8 okt. 2015 om 19:52 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Dear Martin,
> >
> > In your "Light is Heavy" you state:
> >
> > "In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass
> equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
> >
> > Do you have any reference for my contention that the relativistic mass
> of particles is bound EM-radiation?
> >
> > In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is converted to
> relativistic mass & then to radiation. However, I do not know of any text
> or paper that identifies relativistic mass as bound EM-radiation. Your
> statement is close to that.
> >
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> > <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> > Click here to unsubscribe
> > </a>
>
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
> protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
> message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151009/9896237d/attachment.htm>