Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Relativity theory from other angles
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 09:50:32 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <c85ae5896326277e3a10e0f4aea3b9c9@www.novabbs.com>
References: <-uCcnXHlifVbnY76nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1987ec55abc9f5f0cd9fd600166729bc@www.novabbs.com> <C0KdnWSiBurDvI76nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <3482a1d919e426e860b0f6e66a465425@www.novabbs.com> <8qCcnW3IiKP7f476nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2863223"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="4CIDjmRjWbqC4EEN5EcU+HA+pIaOwwy51Z63DnRPIoA";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: d1111375bdddd1d0b42e6fbe96c9934b24d8a010
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$yWfU1GZbd7vNdQXL8ePD9.CJxK40To2QigpRdJQOYanTq/YQMY.Fy
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5099
Lines: 87

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, ....