Re: Energy?

On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
word...Energy.
>
>
>
Stefan Ram wrote:

>
   In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
   system with mass m = 0:
>
E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
>
   . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle
   at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
   p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
>
   So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass
   must have momentum.
>
   But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."?
>
   300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is
   no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass.
>
   Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there
   be a particle with "E = 0"?
>
   Here's the Unicode:
>
E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗
>
   and
>
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
|have a particle, E ≠ 0, and therefore p⃗ ≠ 0.

>

Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
"Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.