/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3277201
I used all my einstien pics in another thread already. I don't feel like duplicating anymore.

>>2967593
>What percentage of physicists actually believe the whole many dimensions thing (M Theory)?

.01% (that may be too high though)
Generally speaking M-theory is not physics.

>I know it is not accepted by some

It is not accepetd by the overwhelming majority. It isnt even considered a proper form of science. Why would you assume it is physics? Pop-science is feeding you very shitty lies.

>>2265141
>>2265149
Assuming you ment to say the velocity of mass, not acceleration?

The reason why you could define a "relativistic mass" that increases with velocity is very well understood. It is just how you used the math of special relativity, how you defined the varibles. However the concept of relativistic mass isn't really used too often in the modern particle physics community.

The whole concept was supposed to simplify shit, however it just lead to misunderstanding, and some people actually assuming that somthing in motion "created more matter". Einstein himself didn't like the idea of relativistic mass.

I have never had to use relativistic mass in physics.

>>1006304
Curium