• Re: Relativity theory from other angles

    From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Oct 19 02:48:17 2024
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Oct 19 06:11:41 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 19 08:47:21 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 20 08:44:12 2024
    Am Samstag000019, 19.10.2024 um 18:59 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    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.


    Actually I have never heard about 'Kelvin's vortices'.

    It sounds a little similar to my own idea, but not that close.

    Most 19th century physicists were 'aetherists', while I would call
    myself 'relativist'.

    I personally use 'spacetime of GR' as kind of 'relativistic aether'.

    But then I would agree to Kelvin.

    About Descartes I have no idea.

    (Possibly I should have a look on what he wrote about atoms.)

    See here:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Oct 20 09:50:32 2024
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 16:46:24 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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".


    Don't think those two had a clue about the Carnot cycle.


    Then these
    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, ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Oct 20 21:06:10 2024
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hey, what if you derive
    light speed from the
    mass-energy equivalency
    instead of the other way around?

    A dead end, dead before you even get started.
    The relativity postulate is about the geometry of space-time.
    So it precedes all physical considerations,
    like mass or energy. They must conform,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 20 20:54:44 2024
    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)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Oct 21 03:04:20 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Tue Oct 22 00:46:35 2024
    On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 17:42:52 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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.

    What passes for physics, yes, most certainly.

    Follow Arindam.

    Woof-woof

    Bertietaylor

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 22 00:50:05 2024
    Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
    direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
    telescope, Barometer, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 22 02:43:18 2024
    Bertietaylor: It certainly is utter nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Bertietaylor on Tue Oct 22 21:59:28 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Oct 23 02:11:10 2024
    On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 0:47:37 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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".

    Inertia violation with Arindam's rail gun experiments is a fact like
    Torricelli barometer.
    That fact justifies the observation that energy gets created and
    destroyed or lost in the infinite vastness of space.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)