Re: Relativity theory from other angles

On 10/20/2024 12:06 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

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

>
A dead end, dead before you even get started.
The relativity postulate is about the geometry of space-time.
So it precedes all physical considerations,
like mass or energy. They must conform,
>
Jan
>

The relativity postulate is just "motion is not absolute".
That's not necessarily so having stuck space-time
with the g_uv and so on as with regards to what
may still make "a Lorentzian for a Minkowski space",
for example with the Zollfrei (zoll-free) setting
up an "asymptotic freedom" while still having
Einstein's theory of Relativity as how he last put it,
that the principle is that "motion is not absolute:
a simple negative principle of relativity", and that
Einstein is not an SR-ian in the sequel, has GR first,
has SR local, has a _separate_ "spatial of GR" and
"spacial of SR", and makes for that a Fitzgeraldian
style of Lorentzian can make for a real space contraction
then that, as in this line of posting and deriving from
the other side: makes yet they all "conform", as with
regards of course what must be to "the conformal".
The tough part is figuring out how to start
the little end of the infinite series.
That's sort of simple, through, just like Einstein
put it, "tensors make all these transforms coordinate-free,
don't ask me how they're implemented though, that's
just how they're defined".
In the absolutes and ideals and absolutes and relative
there are quite a few combinations of negative statements
about the absolute what any one of those results a
theory of "a relativism". I.e., the wider world
of "relativity theories, plural", has that there
are quite a few as they are sorts of "heno-theories",
where what's primary and fundamental and absolute can
sort of rotate around and each one of those yet a physics.
That's it demands a bit of imagination, creativity,
and as well a thorough mathematical development,
which is ambitious, is a bit different than your "dead".