Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
On 10/18/2024 07:48 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 0:44:11 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?
It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.
On 10/18/2024 07:48 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 0:44:11 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?
It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.
On 10/18/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.10.2024 um 05:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 10/18/2024 07:48 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 0:44:11 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?
It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.
I personally regard E= m*c² as wrong.
It should be:
delta(E) = -delta(m)*c²
But actually I think, that the imaginary unit i should be used here, too.
Energie is in a way 'rotated' mass, if you multiply mass by i and regard
i as factor, which would rotate by an angle of 90°.
I named the 'unrotated' pattern 'mass term' and let it point upwards (be
timelike).
So mass is timelike and charge (potential) spacelike.
Inbetween we have 'light-like' and that is the realm, where energy is
radiated away.
But non-radiating energy should also be able exist somewhere (as
'potential') and that is the timeless realm, which we call 'spacelike'.
And that is the hyperplane of the present, if we regard the axis of time
as normal to it and imaginary.
...
TH
Well, it is what it is, an approximation, e = mc^2, and that
there's apocryphally some testing of it via experiment,
then though it's so that the changes in energy's state
and configuration and location as a packet-of-potentials,
has various forms (formulas).
Then it seems you idea invokes DesCartes' or Kelvin's vortices,
with regards to the two usual ideas, one being that the
linear goes into the rotational, and the other that the
rotational goes into the linear, and the usual idea of
the equal and opposite linear, then as well for the usual
the equal and opposite linear at the head of a packet-train
of the rotational the vorticial, with the idea that the
equal and opposite reactions,
are systemic.
On 10/18/2024 11:11 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 3:03:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/18/2024 07:48 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 0:44:11 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?
It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.
Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.
There are at least two definitions of entropy:
Aristotle's "what goes up must come down" and
Leibniz' "what goes in must grow up".
days it's usually after Maupertuis' least action
as according to extremum principles instead of
equi-libria, "least action", then that there's
after Lagrange and after Hamilton and after some
more "severe abstraction in mechanical reduction",
then the statistical mechanics, where it works
out that "least action the gradient the always
increasing entropy", is just to give some running
room in the theory for at least one thing, in this
case entropy, because everything else is "conserved".
Then, "entropy" of course has at least two definitions,
and they're sort of the opposite of each other yet
both indicate the constitutive or de-constitutive,
then there's "gradient" which usually enough means
(derivative) or steepest descent or the grade, while
at the same time it's merely a clock hypothesis
combining theory-of-sum-potentials-with-least-action
with clock-hypothesis-and-a-gradient so it's all
simple how the oldest law of physics "what goes up
must come down", is this modern sort of sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, with a least action gradient then
that being time, while in terms of space, that
results gravity.
That it results it, ..., that it so results, ....
Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?
On 10/20/2024 01:54 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle, superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity,
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.
On 10/20/2024 08:04 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 0:35:13 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2024 01:54 PM, bertietaylor wrote:
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by >>>> Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy >>>> - we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the >>>> bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,
It is bunkum mechanics, just pure nonsense.
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"
All nonsense theories. Replace them with Arindam's physics updating
Newton and trashing the whole of Einstein-Feynman pseudo physics.
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity,
Photons are brief em pulses.
Gravity is an electrostatic effect.
Arindam has explained both in detail.
that this is for improving _mathematics_
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.
Well out with inertia, entropy, relativity and quantum. Out with the
laws of thermodynamics and certainly out with e=MCC=Hv.
Yeah, out with physics, right.
Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.
On 10/22/2024 02:59 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 0:50:05 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.
Just as massively cruel measures were taken to establish Marxist states,
the same basic approaches - hounding sensible rational decent scientists
out of the reckoning if they dared to express doubt about Einstein's
physics - have been taken by the e=MCC thumpers. Tesla was a victim.
Arindam has been similarly persecuted.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Hmm. Maybe frame it on the opposite: instead of "Einstein's legacy
is being abused by coat-tailing paper-hangers", make it along the
lines of something positive, like "Faraday and FitzGerald are being
found again today as with a pretty easy mathematical fix, making all
sorts of new ways to interpret old theory".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 145:27:03 |
| Calls: | 9,694 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,730 |
| Messages: | 6,178,515 |