Re: Relativity theory from other angles

On 10/18/2024 11:11 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 3:03:04 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 10/18/2024 07:48 PM, bertietaylor wrote:

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 0:44:11 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

Hey, what if you derive
light speed from the
mass-energy equivalency
instead of the other way around?

>
What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

>
It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

>
Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?

>
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
>
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
>
>
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

There are at least two definitions of entropy:
Aristotle's "what goes up must come down" and
Leibniz' "what goes in must grow up". Then these
days it's usually after Maupertuis' least action
as according to extremum principles instead of
equi-libria, "least action", then that there's
after Lagrange and after Hamilton and after some
more "severe abstraction in mechanical reduction",
then the statistical mechanics, where it works
out that "least action the gradient the always
increasing entropy", is just to give some running
room in the theory for at least one thing, in this
case entropy, because everything else is "conserved".
Then, "entropy" of course has at least two definitions,
and they're sort of the opposite of each other yet
both indicate the constitutive or de-constitutive,
then there's "gradient" which usually enough means
(derivative) or steepest descent or the grade, while
at the same time it's merely a clock hypothesis
combining theory-of-sum-potentials-with-least-action
with clock-hypothesis-and-a-gradient so it's all
simple how the oldest law of physics "what goes up
must come down", is this modern sort of sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, with a least action gradient then
that being time, while in terms of space, that
results gravity.
That it results it, ..., that it so results, ....