Re: Relativity theory from other angles

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.