Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:17:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Einstein's second mass-energy formula m'/m = e/c^2
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <eN6cnRy1afc0GuL7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <KDKdnarg5JDvFOL7nZ2dnZfqnPiWy52d@giganews.com>
 <IJSdnZK-R6fFgx37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <17dd81ee27dea0f5$1$496440$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:17:31 -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: <17dd81ee27dea0f5$1$496440$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <KtWdnde24uwWuB37nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 135
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gA4saG1FDSS9fao9OlpHy6Kat5e/oc0JvH0KIYY6M0Jc2Fr+PLsXgrEzXklI9AMsz7E+qKJor1UiFJg!FO87Xv1vzq4dH/Qg5Wwsk7+YqUbIY+lwjxZ6XPySByCJFyIbZwjWQwLvnrY+2VZuIzrq9T17Rxqt!Ag==
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: 6954

On 06/29/2024 08:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 29.06.2024 o 16:46, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>> On 06/28/2024 09:11 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 06/28/2024 09:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> In "Out of My Later Years", Einstein's introduces another
>>>> mass-energy equivalence formula after kinetic terms.
>>>>
>>>> So if it's sort of Einstein's second-most famous formula,
>>>> why hasn't anybody heard of it?
>>>>
>>>> m'/m = e/c^2
>>>>
>>>> It introduces that the terms in the rotational, make
>>>> for that mass-energy equivalence only sits in the
>>>> rotational setting, among all the other usual terms.
>>>>
>>>> It's introduced in a brief note near the end of
>>>> the material on science in Einstein's "Out of My
>>>> Later Years".
>>>>
>>>> It really makes for a sort of way to make it so
>>>> that the space-contraction results real while
>>>> also that the linear is rather Galilean, while
>>>> still fulfilling all the usual derivations, if
>>>> not necessarily the rhetoric or intuitions,
>>>> yet very intuitionistically while all formally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty great I wonder why it's not well-known.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
>>>
>>>
>>
>> These ideas in "Lorentz factor" in accommodating what are
>> the "fictitious forces", which are real, and making for
>> why there is boost addition with regards to addition
>> formulae in what are continuous milieux, often harkens
>> to the "Larmor forces" and "Larmor formula", "Lorentz-Larmor".
>>
>>
>> Then, "Lorentz factor" also reflects that in the "Lorentz
>> transformations", that it results about differential analysis
>> being about constants vis-a-vis implicits, of course about
>> metrics and norms of fields and gauges, helping explain why
>> Einstein's theory by itself, and Feynman's theories themselves,
>> have the _forms_ of the coordinate-free according to tensors,
>> or the quantum amplitudes according to discretization, yet
>> as well these have continuous _forms_, that "Lorentz factor"
>> has all the components of "Lorentz transform" broken out
>> as variously projective, for various purposes, here then
>> mostly for "space-contraction" and "FitzGerald", then that
>> FitzGerald, Larmor, Heaviside, and Faraday, are close to Maxwell.
>>
>> Einstein: in his "Out of My Later Years", which is great,
>> has that he _does_ make for that SR is local, then that
>> GR being fundamental thusly, then that m'/m = e/c^2,
>> is a quite _profound_ connection of the objects of
>> Einstein's theory, both equipping the rotational setting
>> for mass-energy equivalency, and, detaching it from the
>> Galilean.
>>
>> So, Einstein's second mass-energy equivalency relation,
>> and the relation to Einstein's bridges about the centrally
>> symmetrical, with how he left his board, are key concepts
>> connecting the classical and the superclassical,
>> and showing how mathematically it's a thing.
>>
>>
>
> And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
> by the idiot "improper" clocks of GPS and TAI keep
> measuring t'=t, just like all the serious clocks
> always did.
>


Well, perhaps the idea is that, as their settings are different,
then that there is a sort of "exoteric", the sheeple's,
the exterior, and the "esoteric", what here is the empirical,
where there's any difference between empirical and the theoretical.

So, the idea is that as long as the uninformed always use
a given simplified theoretical setting, then, the more
informed can translate that to a given more relevant,
empirical setting.



Then, also, think of the plain panacea of that according
to light speed being a maximum, there's no way that
extra-terrestrial aliens could ever arrive at Earth,
nor would it be sensible to ever leave the Solar System,
so that the exoteric side of the science gives that
thusly the peoples will have to be forward-thinking
and considerate that their future is together. I.e.,
as a psychological aspect of a facile and shallow
exposure to "the theory", is one of these things.

Another perhaps greater thing is about predestination
vis-a-vis free will, the idea being that free will is
a great thing, whether or not it's falsifiable or
super-scientific being a thing, that space-time in
a theory being all loose and disjointed makes for
some that it results like the statistical interpretation,
the "Fourth Dimension", that all the logical positivists
and multiple-world interpretation types would be
confronted with their own Universe they are in.

So, besides the plainly technical aspects, and,
also making for that when there are branches
when arithmetic and algebra and geometry let out
in various branches of super-classical models
any different than the classical models of
the solid, liquid, and gas, or fluid models
of current and of course wave theory, that
those are at least computable and in the esoteric
setting that the empirical can deconstruct them
and break them down and also provide for them
what inputs will suffice for them, so that
a billion receivers can be implemented without
having to know what goes on in the few senders,
besides the plainly technical aspects, then
also are psychological aspects, that shallow
and facile students can get an exposure to
a "the theory", and walk away it's whatever they want.



"Descriptive differential dynamics: stop-derivative and motion"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB5RiiK0ukI&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=18