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: <Energy-20240728103722@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
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.