Re: Relativity theory from other angles

Am Samstag000019, 19.10.2024 um 18:59 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

On 10/18/2024 11:47 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000019, 19.10.2024 um 05:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

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.

>
>
I personally regard E= m*c² as wrong.
>
It should be:
delta(E) = -delta(m)*c²
>
But actually I think, that the imaginary unit i should be used here, too.
>
Energie is in a way 'rotated' mass, if you multiply mass by i and regard
i as factor, which would rotate by an angle of 90°.
>
I named the 'unrotated' pattern 'mass term' and let it point upwards (be
timelike).
>
So mass is timelike and charge (potential) spacelike.
>
Inbetween we have 'light-like' and that is the realm, where energy is
radiated away.
>
But non-radiating energy should also be able exist somewhere (as
'potential') and that is the timeless realm, which we call 'spacelike'.
>
And that is the hyperplane of the present, if we regard the axis of time
as normal to it and imaginary.
...
>
>
TH

 Well, it is what it is, an approximation, e = mc^2, and that
there's apocryphally some testing of it via experiment,
then though it's so that the changes in energy's state
and configuration and location as a packet-of-potentials,
has various forms (formulas).
  Then it seems you idea invokes DesCartes' or Kelvin's vortices,
with regards to the two usual ideas, one being that the
linear goes into the rotational, and the other that the
rotational goes into the linear, and the usual idea of
the equal and opposite linear, then as well for the usual
the equal and opposite linear at the head of a packet-train
of the rotational the vorticial, with the idea that the
equal and opposite reactions,
are systemic.
 

Actually I have never heard about 'Kelvin's vortices'.
It sounds a little similar to my own idea, but not that close.
Most 19th century physicists were 'aetherists', while I would call myself 'relativist'.
I personally use 'spacetime of GR' as kind of 'relativistic aether'.
But then I would agree to Kelvin.
About Descartes I have no idea.
(Possibly I should have a look on what he wrote about atoms.)
See here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH