3 ms·
If this is a recent terminology change, then people who use the old terminology are not factually "wrong", they just use an outdated definition. I do have a qu
by codeflo 12y ago
If this is a recent terminology change, then people who use the old terminology are not factually "wrong", they just use an outdated definition.
I do have a question though, if you or anyone else wants to clear this up for me. Which kinds of energy are no longer considered part of a system's "mass"? I gather that kinetic energy is not. What about various forms of binding energy?
- millstone 12y agoOnly kinetic energy does not contribute to mass. In fact, it's even narrower: only the kinetic energy of the center of mass does not contribute. For example, heat energy is really just kinetic energy of the constituent particles, and heat definitely contributes to mass. The essential idea is that mass is Lorentz invariant, which means it does not change under changes of coordinate systems. So mass must be independent of velocity and orientation, which are just artifacts of how you measure anyways.