Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655392 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-29 17:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2024-08-17 11:28 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 51 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 07:33 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:22 -0700
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-17 08:33 +0200
Re: Energy? Dmitry Kalmár <ilrbl@pknd.hu> - 2024-08-17 11:28 +0000
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-01 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g96dneMRJ9cGfzb7nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655441 |
On 08/01/2024 10:45 AM, The Starmaker 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> 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. > > > It appears to be written in English, but seems too differcult to read! > > i don't understand what happened to the English language... > > by the time it leaves the USA, ... > > "Whew! That was a close one." in London reads "That was a near one!" > > and by the time it reaches Russia...ALL THE LETTERS ARE > WRITTEN...BACKWARDS!!!! > > > What the hell is going on???? > > > How did the fucking Russians end up with backward letters??? > > Do they walk backwards too? > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a spoken reading of Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", with 21'st century commentary, if you're interested in some background noise. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3 The science parts, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-01 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66AC225C.6A2B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #655443 |
Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 08/01/2024 10:45 AM, The Starmaker 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: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > > > It appears to be written in English, but seems too differcult to read! > > > > i don't understand what happened to the English language... > > > > by the time it leaves the USA, ... > > > > "Whew! That was a close one." in London reads "That was a near one!" > > > > and by the time it reaches Russia...ALL THE LETTERS ARE > > WRITTEN...BACKWARDS!!!! > > > > > > What the hell is going on???? > > > > > > How did the fucking Russians end up with backward letters??? > > > > Do they walk backwards too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a spoken reading of Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", > with 21'st century commentary, if you're interested in some > background noise. > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3 > > The science parts, .... I was refering to your posts..you have an 'unusual' writing style. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-02 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66AD00A3.3BC9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #655418 |
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: > >>>> > >>>> 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. > > > > 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! I'm afraid to ask you ..."What is a woman?" -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 12:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <66ae09cc$0$3667$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #655469 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e83e5b378698ed$123034$505064$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655494 |
W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze: > 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, And, similiarly, somethinf your bunch of idiots is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense ubless it's absolute/obswever independent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 16:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v8lfd1$3ev2n$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #655499 |
Le 03/08/2024 à 16:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze: ... >> 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, > > And, similiarly (sic), somethinf (sic) [SR] > is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense > ubless (sic) it's absolute/obswever (sic) independent. "similiarly", "somethinf", "ubless", "obswever". High on drugs today? Anyway, you're right in the sense that coordinate time in SR is partly conventional (i.e. depends on clocks synchronization) and is, at the end of day when one performs real experiments, only an intermediate value used in calculation. Only colocated measurements can be done. Maybe you will, one day, understand what SR is after all Wozniak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 17:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e841ff93b709c6$145589$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655500 |
W dniu 03.08.2024 o 16:38, Python pisze: > Le 03/08/2024 à 16:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze: > ... >>> 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, >> >> And, similiarly (sic), somethinf (sic) [SR] >> is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense >> ubless (sic) it's absolute/obswever (sic) independent. > > "similiarly", "somethinf", "ubless", "obswever". High on drugs today? > > Anyway, you're right in the sense that coordinate time in SR > is partly conventional (i.e. depends on clocks synchronization) > and is, at the end of day when one performs real experiments, > only an intermediate value used in calculation. > > Only colocated measurements can be done. Take your precious measurements and put them straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where they belong. With real times, like UTimeC, TimeAI, zone times - they have very little in common. And, whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he has written it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker). > > Maybe you will, one day, understand what SR is after all Wozniak. Oh, some idiots worshipping that mumble don't change the fact that it wasn't even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <U6CcnSDN2JMgSjP7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655494 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-03 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gz2dne006a7BdjP7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655517 |
On 08/03/2024 06:22 PM, 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. > > It's much derived from Hooke's law, with regards to the pendulum and spring, the pendulum in its infinite well and the spring connected in its finite well, well-of-potential, then combined with some things like root-mean square then after Euler's identity and Gaussian integral, then what gets into the Born law and "the convention" of the quantum mechanics, keeping Hamiltonians simple, why Clausius seems simple and just reflects the old law "what goes up must come down", then that entropy is both of Aristotle's and Leibniz', then that Millikan measured an electron so there's arrived at electron physics, when really the particles are a conceit to the individua of the continuous flux, keeping things simple. Numerical methods with their error terms, and error modes, ..., like taking the first term of the Taylor series, small-angle approximation, what builds up the Wick rotation out of the Gaussian, keeping the triangle inequality or Cauchy-Schwartz as it's usually known, keeping things simple even though things aren't always either adiabatic or non-adiabatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 11:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lh8vilFamjuU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655517 |
Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > 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". Stringtheory is imho nonsense. my own theory is this https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is smooth, but has internal structures. The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. This has two sides, but only one surface. If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear, which we can call 'matter'. This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline, hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction. This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as material object. But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of nothing. Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and a certain kind of connection between the elements. This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <VDGdnTrz8--ABTL7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655519 |
On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >> 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". > > Stringtheory is imho nonsense. > > my own theory is this > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. > > The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. > > Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is > smooth, but has internal structures. > > The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a > certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. > > Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. > > This has two sides, but only one surface. > > If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) > and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear, > which we can call 'matter'. > > This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline, > hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction. > > This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as > material object. > > But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of nothing. > > Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and > a certain kind of connection between the elements. > > This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would > rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions. > > > TH It's a continuum mechanics, yes? That's all superstrings are, "atoms again" as much smaller than atoms as atoms are us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-05 09:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lhbbmkFlirrU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #655524 |
Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 17:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>> 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". >> >> Stringtheory is imho nonsense. >> >> my own theory is this >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. >> >> The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. >> >> Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is >> smooth, but has internal structures. >> >> The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a >> certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. >> >> Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. >> >> This has two sides, but only one surface. >> >> If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) >> and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear, >> which we can call 'matter'. >> >> This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline, >> hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction. >> >> This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as >> material object. >> >> But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of >> nothing. >> >> Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and >> a certain kind of connection between the elements. >> >> This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would >> rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions. >> >> >> TH > > > It's a continuum mechanics, yes? That's all superstrings are, > "atoms again" as much smaller than atoms as atoms are us. > > It is in fact based on a continuum, but with internal structure. The 'mechanism' which creates this structure is assumed to be the kind of interaction. This is similar to quaternion multiplication 'sideways'. This is anti-symmetric and can create kind of 'moebius-strip-behaviour'. With this concept I have tried to establish a connection between GR and QM. This is realtively simple and goes like this: assume, that spacetime of GR is a real physical system, which is composed of pointlike elements. These elements can have features and behave like if they were a certain type of quaternions called 'bi-quaternions' which interact with their direct neighbours in a certain way. This is similar to a mathematical concept called 'geometric algebra' with complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra. Now I assume, that the universe behaves like this and therefore tried to build particles out of spacetime. Out came 'structured spacetime'. And as far as I can tell, the concept works quite well. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7decda1aec6ca80754a1995b4ca06cce@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #655519 |
On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 9:22:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Stringtheory is imho nonsense. "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either. It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more likely a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still inevitable in our quest for a unified theory. "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is – almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit > my own theory is this > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. Why does that make it "better"? The universe is what it is, neither "worse" or "better." “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” -- Lawrence M. Krauss > The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. > > Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is > smooth, but has internal structures. > > The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a > certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. The universe doesn't appear to be "smooth": not on the macro nor on the micro. Why would we expect it to be on the nano? Field theory, IMHO, appears to be an attempt to impose smoothness on an inherently discontinuous reality. > Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. > > This has two sides, but only one surface. > > If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) So much for "smoothness" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jeucnRUNra32VDL7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655526 |
On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 9:22:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Stringtheory is imho nonsense. > > "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either. > It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more likely > a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still > inevitable in our quest for a unified theory. > > "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is – > almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful > non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to > the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a > magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and > beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe > our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our > attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit > >> my own theory is this >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. > > Why does that make it "better"? The universe is what it is, neither > "worse" or "better." > > “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone > thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; > rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” > -- Lawrence M. Krauss > >> The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. >> >> Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is >> smooth, but has internal structures. >> >> The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a >> certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. > > The universe doesn't appear to be "smooth": not on the macro nor on > the micro. Why would we expect it to be on the nano? Field theory, > IMHO, appears to be an attempt to impose smoothness on an inherently > discontinuous reality. > >> Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. >> >> This has two sides, but only one surface. >> >> If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) > > So much for "smoothness" :-) Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous manifold what is the Space-Time? It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete revolution, or the old time goes back forever / space goes on forever then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping, for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions", and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one. I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource, which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials. These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric, and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that it's not just particles. If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete, it might as well be empty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <440cd85325413e5f66f7473d0d880682@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #655527 |
On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:33:54 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote: > > > > "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either. > > It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more > likely > > a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still > > inevitable in our quest for a unified theory. > > > > "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is – > > almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful > > non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to > > the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a > > magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and > > beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe > > our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our > > attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit > > > > “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone > > thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; > > rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” > > -- Lawrence M. Krauss > > Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions > and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous > manifold what is the Space-Time? > > It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals > making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete > revolution, or the old > > time goes back forever / space goes on forever > > then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions > to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping, > for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions", > and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just > exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one. > > I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves > continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource, > which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the > sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials. > > These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous > mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course > what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the > occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric, > and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that > it's not just particles. > > If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete, > it might as well be empty. Why wouldn't continuity be just as empty? The human mind just can't grasp action-at-a-distance, so fields were -- invented. In Q.E.D., Feynman asserted that light is -- particles. Particles communicate between discrete grains over distances, but the math for that is very complicated. That's why fields (and QFT) were invented. They are simplistic (?) approximations to reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <wHednWHP5fbqfDL7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #655528 |
On 08/04/2024 12:38 PM, gharnagel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:33:54 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote: >> > >> > "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either. >> > It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more >> likely >> > a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still >> > inevitable in our quest for a unified theory. >> > >> > "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is – >> > almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful >> > non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to >> > the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a >> > magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and >> > beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe >> > our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our >> > attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit >> > >> > “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone >> > thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; >> > rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” >> > -- Lawrence M. Krauss >> >> Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions >> and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous >> manifold what is the Space-Time? >> >> It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals >> making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete >> revolution, or the old >> >> time goes back forever / space goes on forever >> >> then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions >> to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping, >> for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions", >> and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just >> exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one. >> >> I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves >> continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource, >> which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the >> sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials. >> >> These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous >> mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course >> what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the >> occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric, >> and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that >> it's not just particles. >> >> If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete, >> it might as well be empty. > > Why wouldn't continuity be just as empty? The human mind > just can't grasp action-at-a-distance, so fields were -- > invented. In Q.E.D., Feynman asserted that light is -- > particles. Particles communicate between discrete grains > over distances, but the math for that is very complicated. > That's why fields (and QFT) were invented. They are > simplistic (?) approximations to reality. According to Archimedes Plutonium it's one big dot a plutoniom atom, .... The "object sense" is to be cultivated, with regards to Zeno, as the classical exposition of continuous and infinitely-divisible quantities, in time, the universal parameter of the continuous and infinitely-divisible, quantities. The "object sense", is a complement to the usual phenomenological senses or Sens which comprise the detecters of observables, to extend it merely to the notion of reason and rationality of the numbers the infinite and infinitely-divisible, numbers, of a continuum, as with regards to individua and continua, a continuum. So, the "word sense", "number sense", object sense, as making for a "continuum sense" and a sense of _time_, is this minimal sort of apparatus, then, to equip phenomenology, with this rational sense, of otherwise the "apeiron" of the infinite a plain true rational real infinite numbers. Consider d'Espagnat and his philosophy of physics and the position of realism as with regards to the modern day and the Aspect-type experiments and otherwise that since Fresnel and Huygens at least light was waves and optical not merely geometric, that equipping the model physicist with a merest object-sense with one real infinity, changes the entire picture. Are we not Men?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Verdell Muklevich Fung <vvll@lhvvec.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 23:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v8p3l4$776s$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #655528 |
gharnagel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:33:54 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete, >> it might as well be empty. > > Why wouldn't continuity be just as empty? The human mind just can't > grasp action-at-a-distance, so fields were -- invented. In Q.E.D., > Feynman asserted that light is -- particles. Particles communicate > between discrete grains over distances, but the math for that is very > complicated. > That's why fields (and QFT) were invented. They are simplistic (?) > approximations to reality no shit Sherlock, fields are there before quantum, Newtone and everything, due forces, say gravity, electrostatic, magnetism etc. These persons doesn't know what fields are. In physics. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻_𝗠𝗮𝘆_𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗼𝗻_9𝘁𝗵_𝗼𝗳_𝗔𝘃 - they are asking for it https://old.b%69%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69%64eo/zw8tWZpys3JP/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-04 22:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <17e89fa3545fe021$96454$546728$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #655526 |
W dniu 04.08.2024 o 20:03, gharnagel pisze: > “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone > thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; Whoever mr Krauss is - he is, well, mistaken. "someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules" - is exactly why they were invented. > rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” > -- Lawrence M. Krauss Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical lie, Harrie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rictor Tatár <trttr@cirrtrra.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-05 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v8qbs3$dv2d$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #655526 |
gharnagel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 9:22:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Stringtheory is imho nonsense. > > "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either. > It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more likely > a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still > inevitable in our quest for a unified theory. > > "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is – > almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful non-truth > which miraculously manages to come ever so close to the truth – one > thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a magnificent, shining edifice of > such internal cohesiveness and beauty that it almost doesn't matter if > it doesn't describe our own universe: the universe it does describe > deserves our attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit deplorable puerile incoherence and imbecility. Good to know how imbecility looks like. trump - trust the plan https://old.b%69%74%63%68ute.com/%76%69%64eo/fW87FYKmxm58
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-08-05 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66B0F387.1A3B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #655517 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web