Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:43:25 +0000 Subject: Re: Energy? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:43:47 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <9U6dneBCi4_A_DX7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 48 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-45LFofVi2TTOtBp+Idg2JalSGap/ZFDBSciYoA+xjaQ4IENuiRGd7uXs2mfzEUMieAazM1Cnn83NJly!UI4Ax21zhwzT8DP3EMcVksOaEv6ECHzLqeLTltBdtqigqPyNG7RrX37ZtgVACxXRb+IZ8Te7B2PW X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 2659 On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the > word...Energy. > > > > Stefan Ram wrote: >> >> In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a >> system with mass m = 0: >> >> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector" >> >> . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle >> at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore >> p^'3-vector' <> 0.". >> >> So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass >> must have momentum. >> >> But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."? >> >> 300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is >> no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass. >> >> Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there >> be a particle with "E = 0"? >> >> Here's the Unicode: >> >> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗ >> >> and >> >> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >> |have a particle, E ≠0, and therefore p⃗ ≠0. > Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other, "Aristotle's and Leibniz'". The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae, content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis, which are the same word, one for power the other potential. So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.