Changes

#:The cited National Geographic article was in fact not about the problem of temperature uniformity, but about various hypotheses, much less widely accepted than inflation, about alternate universes, and whether black hole singularities might connect them.  The issue is not about the existence of black holes, but about the connectedness of their singularities.  This is really fascinating stuff.  The book ''The Hidden Reality'', by Brian Greene, is a fascinating account of these issues.  We highly recommend it.

#:The cited National Geographic article was in fact not about the problem of temperature uniformity, but about various hypotheses, much less widely accepted than inflation, about alternate universes, and whether black hole singularities might connect them.  The issue is not about the existence of black holes, but about the connectedness of their singularities.  This is really fascinating stuff.  The book ''The Hidden Reality'', by Brian Greene, is a fascinating account of these issues.  We highly recommend it.

:::There is no "Aristotelian notion of gravity".  He had notions of "natural motion".  And where did he say that "objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass"?  According to you, he must have thought that hot air had negative mass!  And when did he use the term "proportional" in that sense?  To (falsely) frame him as the beginning of a series of wrong theories is to slight one of the most profound thinkers in the history of the world! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:48, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

:::There is no "Aristotelian notion of gravity".  He had notions of "natural motion".  And where did he say that "objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass"?  According to you, he must have thought that hot air had negative mass!  And when did he use the term "proportional" in that sense?  To (falsely) frame him as the beginning of a series of wrong theories is to slight one of the most profound thinkers in the history of the world! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:48, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''

#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''

#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.

#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.