Re: Relativity theory from other angles

On 10/18/2024 08:03 PM, 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.
>
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.
>
>

Most people have never heard of
"Einstein's second-most famous
mass/energy equivalency formula"
that he outlays at the end of the
"Out of my Later Years" in terms
of the "Einstein's bridge" concept
if you've heard of that, m m' (1-c)
or what it is, Einstein's "second most
famous mass-energy equivalency formula,
that nobody's every heard of".
Most people have heard of "mc^2",
and furthermore have no idea that
it's m (c^2 + c'^4 + c''^6 ...), "the rest
of the infinitary expansion", in GR.
Anyways the idea is to sort of reverse that,
so it results instead that light speed
arises from the relations of mass,
so that the lifetime of radioisotopes
and electrical current, help to go to show
that of course there abstractly _is_ a
derivation the other way around,
that perhaps if they never even thought
that SR's "mc^2, period", and GR's "mc^2
and the rest of the expansion which it is",
then it could be gently introduced these
multiple ideas at once, in case it may otherwise
be so that some radical SR'ians may violently
react to being told that their SR-first theory
was missing 99+% of the many terms of
the infinitary expression, of mass-energy
equivalency, which is usually used to explain
what the power of atomic bomb is and then
also what the power of matter/anti-matter
reaction would be.
Mostly though because then it would help
that the development would work up some
natural units as for example it's simple that
"SR-ians keeps some things simple at the
cost of others" that according to this sort
of E-principle or Energy-principle for the usual
L-principle or Light-principle, that, because
it's well known already what that is, that
the quite challenging mathematical
derivation as of "run analysis backward",
would yet help show for a simple category
diagram, various ways these theories and
their various relativity theories together,
are interpreted in terms of each other.