Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655536

Re: Energy?

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ · pâ∞˜
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
> >>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈  0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈  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.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's capacity to do work.
> >>>
> >>> It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
> >>> and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
> >>> that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
> >>> and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
> >>> velocity, and neutron lifetime.
> >>>
> >>> I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
> >>> and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
> >>> and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
> >>> and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
> >>>
> >>> These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
> >>> is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
> >>> of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
> >>> super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
> >>> theory.
> >>>
> >>> Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
> >>> to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
> >>> the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
> >>> action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
> >>>
> >>> Moment and Motion, ....
> >>>
> >>> If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
> >>> is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an 'attempt' to
> >> define the word "energy".
> >>
> >> You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
> >> seach for meanings.
> >>
> >> It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
> >
> > Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
> > But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
> > isn't really an energy in a physical sense
> > unless you can show how it can be converted
> > (partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
> >
> > With conservation of energy of course,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> 
> Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of
> the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E.,
> it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first
> terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy".
> 
> So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived
> and you don't know the rest of it.
> 
> Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg
> uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks,
> it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule
> and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex,
> in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not
> so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the
> continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized.
> 
> Of course lots of people know that every five years the
> Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical
> constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger,
> as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime"
> as with regards to "superstring theory".
> 
> Or, you're kind of like Clausius' pet.



The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the
Sun.'



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-29 17:14 -0700
  Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 20:43 -0700
    Re: Energy? Eddy Vadász <azsd@ddd.hu> - 2024-07-30 16:46 +0000
    Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-30 22:29 -0700
      Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 10:02 +0200
        Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 10:30 +0200
          Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-31 15:30 +0000
            Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 21:02 +0200
              Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:37 +0200
            Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:43 +0200
              Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-01 03:12 +0000
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-01 07:15 +0200
                Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-02 10:05 +0200
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 11:05 +0200
                Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-02 13:32 +0200
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 15:22 +0200
                Re: Energy? Bobauk Guang Chou <gbnbu@agag.cn> - 2024-08-02 09:48 +0000
        Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 13:46 +0200
      Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-31 12:43 -0700
        Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 10:45 -0700
          Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 12:32 -0700
            Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 17:03 -0700
        Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-02 08:52 -0700
          Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-03 12:43 +0200
            Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 16:30 +0200
              Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-03 16:38 +0200
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 17:37 +0200
            Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 18:22 -0700
              Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 19:46 -0700
              Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-04 11:22 +0200
                Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 08:03 -0700
                Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-05 09:01 +0200
                Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 18:03 +0000
                Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 11:33 -0700
                Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 19:38 +0000
                Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 13:16 -0700
                Re: Energy? Verdell Muklevich Fung <vvll@lhvvec.ru> - 2024-08-04 23:42 +0000
                Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-04 22:13 +0200
                Re: Energy? Rictor Tatár <trttr@cirrtrra.hu> - 2024-08-05 11:08 +0000
              Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-05 08:45 -0700
                Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-06 10:15 -0700
                Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-07 11:13 -0700
                Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-09 09:38 -0700
                Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-10 10:37 +0200
                Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-10 09:59 -0700
                Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-16 11:05 +0200

csiph-web