Re: Einstein's second mass-energy formula m'/m = e/c^2

W dniu 29.06.2024 o 18:40, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/29/2024 09:11 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 29.06.2024 o 17:17, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/29/2024 08:04 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 29.06.2024 o 16:46, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/28/2024 09:11 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/28/2024 09:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

In "Out of My Later Years", Einstein's introduces another
mass-energy equivalence formula after kinetic terms.
>
So if it's sort of Einstein's second-most famous formula,
why hasn't anybody heard of it?
>
m'/m = e/c^2
>
It introduces that the terms in the rotational, make
for that mass-energy equivalence only sits in the
rotational setting, among all the other usual terms.
>
It's introduced in a brief note near the end of
the material on science in Einstein's "Out of My
Later Years".
>
It really makes for a sort of way to make it so
that the space-contraction results real while
also that the linear is rather Galilean, while
still fulfilling all the usual derivations, if
not necessarily the rhetoric or intuitions,
yet very intuitionistically while all formally.
>
>
It's pretty great I wonder why it's not well-known.
>

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
>
>

>
These ideas in "Lorentz factor" in accommodating what are
the "fictitious forces", which are real, and making for
why there is boost addition with regards to addition
formulae in what are continuous milieux, often harkens
to the "Larmor forces" and "Larmor formula", "Lorentz-Larmor".
>
>
Then, "Lorentz factor" also reflects that in the "Lorentz
transformations", that it results about differential analysis
being about constants vis-a-vis implicits, of course about
metrics and norms of fields and gauges, helping explain why
Einstein's theory by itself, and Feynman's theories themselves,
have the _forms_ of the coordinate-free according to tensors,
or the quantum amplitudes according to discretization, yet
as well these have continuous _forms_, that "Lorentz factor"
has all the components of "Lorentz transform" broken out
as variously projective, for various purposes, here then
mostly for "space-contraction" and "FitzGerald", then that
FitzGerald, Larmor, Heaviside, and Faraday, are close to Maxwell.
>
Einstein: in his "Out of My Later Years", which is great,
has that he _does_ make for that SR is local, then that
GR being fundamental thusly, then that m'/m = e/c^2,
is a quite _profound_ connection of the objects of
Einstein's theory, both equipping the rotational setting
for mass-energy equivalency, and, detaching it from the
Galilean.
>
So, Einstein's second mass-energy equivalency relation,
and the relation to Einstein's bridges about the centrally
symmetrical, with how he left his board, are key concepts
connecting the classical and the superclassical,
and showing how mathematically it's a thing.
>
>

>
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by the idiot "improper" clocks of GPS and TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all the serious clocks
always did.
>

>
>
Well, perhaps the idea is that, as their settings are different,

>
The idea is, that the purpose of clocks is
keeping synchronization (i.e. indicating t'=t).
The purpose of clocks is not providing beautiful
symmetry to some religious maniacs.
Taking it short - clock are not toy gadgets for
some  insane worshippers of some insane gurus.

 Especially other people's clocks, ....

Right, especially the clocks of "observers".
But you're not stupid enough to apply your
idiocies even on your own clocks.