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

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 29 07:48:12 2024
    W dniu 29.06.2024 o 06:04, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    In "Out of My Later Years", Einstein's introduces another
    mass-energy equivalence formula after kinetic terms.

    Let us all study The Words of our
    beloved Giant Guru!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 29 17:04:52 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 29 18:11:22 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 29 19:40:59 2024
    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.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)