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."?
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.
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.
A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law of conservation of energy.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we
|have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:of
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
conservation of energy.
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law? Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
down the toilet?
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
of
A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
conservation of energy.
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law?
gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
of
A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
conservation of energy.
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law? Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
down the toilet?
Yes, a complete lack of understanding of what it is all about,
in his case.
You may use the law of conservation of energy
to discover new and as yet unknown forms of energy.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law?
Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
believe The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
little ones; but only idiots like you
can believe such crap.
So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
Why would that be? Perhaps it's because he
doesn't believe in anything?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
With the definition above - your "law" is
a simple truism, and some fanatic idiots
screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
doesn't understand science. Of COURSE
conservation of energy is falsifiable! It
can be determined by making measurements.
A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law of conservation of energy.
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
On 08/01/2024 10:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
It appears to be written in English, but seems too differcult to read!
i don't understand what happened to the English language...
by the time it leaves the USA, ...
"Whew! That was a close one." in London reads "That was a near one!"
and by the time it reaches Russia...ALL THE LETTERS ARE WRITTEN...BACKWARDS!!!!
What the hell is going on????
How did the fucking Russians end up with backward letters???
Do they walk backwards too?
Here's a spoken reading of Einstein's "Out of My Later Years",
with 21'st century commentary, if you're interested in some
background noise.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3
The science parts, ....
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law?
Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
believe The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
little ones; but only idiots like you
can believe such crap.
So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
Why would that be? Perhaps it's because he
doesn't believe in anything?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
With the definition above - your "law" is
a simple truism, and some fanatic idiots
screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
doesn't understand science. Of COURSE
conservation of energy is falsifiable! It
can be determined by making measurements.
So far, it hasn't been falsified. Supposed
problems have arisen in the past and were
put to rest by finding new forms of energy
or new particles.
gharnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
"law of nature" is really a simple language truism
(and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).
So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
law?
Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
believe The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
little ones; but only idiots like you
can believe such crap.
So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
Why would that be? Perhaps it's because he
doesn't believe in anything?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
With the definition above - your "law" is
a simple truism, and some fanatic idiots
screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.
Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
doesn't understand science. Of COURSE
conservation of energy is falsifiable! It
can be determined by making measurements.
So far, it hasn't been falsified. Supposed
problems have arisen in the past and were
put to rest by finding new forms of energy
or new particles.
So it is not falsifiable by experiments.
It can only be falsified -by failure-
to find a new and better theory
of what energy is. (in which it is again conserved)
Of course such a situation is impossible,
for such a failure to find a better thery
could just be due to our collective stupidity.
We can never be sure that it cannot exist,
...
You really have no clue of what science is doing
to you and what it is using you for.
Le 02/08/2024 à 11:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
You really have no clue of what science is doing
to you and what it is using you for.
Well... Tell us.
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an 'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
seach for meanings.
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an 'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
seach for meanings.
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze:...
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
And, similiarly (sic), somethinf (sic) [SR]
is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense
ubless (sic) it's absolute/obswever (sic) independent.
Le 03/08/2024 à 16:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze:...
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
And, similiarly (sic), somethinf (sic) [SR]
is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense
ubless (sic) it's absolute/obswever (sic) independent.
"similiarly", "somethinf", "ubless", "obswever". High on drugs today?
Anyway, you're right in the sense that coordinate time in SR
is partly conventional (i.e. depends on clocks synchronization)
and is, at the end of day when one performs real experiments,
only an intermediate value used in calculation.
Only colocated measurements can be done.
Maybe you will, one day, understand what SR is after all Wozniak.
On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >>>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an
'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
seach for meanings.
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
Jan
Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of
the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E.,
it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first
terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy".
So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived
and you don't know the rest of it.
Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg
uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks,
it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule
and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex,
in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not
so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the
continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized.
Of course lots of people know that every five years the
Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical
constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger,
as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime"
as with regards to "superstring theory".
“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss
On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, >>>>>>>>>> or we
|have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence >>>>>> and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is >>>>>> that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state >>>>>> and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws, >>>>>> and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants, >>>>>> and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging >>>>>> of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply >>>>>> action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter >>>>>> is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first. >>>>>
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an
'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the
Internet in
seach for meanings.
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
Jan
Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of
the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E.,
it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first
terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy".
So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived
and you don't know the rest of it.
Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg
uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks,
it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule
and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex,
in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not
so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the
continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized.
Of course lots of people know that every five years the
Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical
constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger,
as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime"
as with regards to "superstring theory".
Stringtheory is imho nonsense.
my own theory is this
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings.
The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual.
Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is
smooth, but has internal structures.
The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a
certain phenomenon called 'handedness'.
Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon.
This has two sides, but only one surface.
If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features)
and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear,
which we can call 'matter'.
This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline,
hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction.
This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as
material object.
But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of
nothing.
Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and
a certain kind of connection between the elements.
This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would
rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions.
TH
It's a continuum mechanics, yes? That's all superstrings are,
"atoms again" as much smaller than atoms as atoms are us.
On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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:
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ Â· pâ∞˜
and
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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.
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
It's capacity to do work.
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
Moment and Motion, ....
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an 'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
seach for meanings.
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
With conservation of energy of course,
Jan
Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of
the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E.,
it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first
terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy".
So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived
and you don't know the rest of it.
Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg
uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks,
it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule
and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex,
in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not
so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the
continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized.
Of course lots of people know that every five years the
Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical
constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger,
as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime"
as with regards to "superstring theory".
Or, you're kind of like Clausius' pet.
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the
Sun.'
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the
Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
Nobody, and i mean nobody wore sunscreen at the Manhattan Project.
feynman died and einstein died, and many others.. all from the same
reasons, not wearing sunscreen to protect them from...'waves from the
Sun.'
(of course, it goes without saying you're not suppose to believe that
about einstein)
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the
Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
Nobody, and i mean nobody wore sunscreen at the Manhattan Project.
feynman died and einstein died, and many others.. all from the same
reasons, not wearing sunscreen to protect them from...'waves from the
Sun.'
(of course, it goes without saying you're not suppose to believe that
about einstein)
Keep in mind the very first paragrah in Einstein's letter:
"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future." -Albert Einstein
Am Freitag000009, 09.08.2024 um 18:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the >>>> Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
Nobody, and i mean nobody wore sunscreen at the Manhattan Project.
feynman died and einstein died, and many others.. all from the same
reasons, not wearing sunscreen to protect them from...'waves from the
Sun.'
(of course, it goes without saying you're not suppose to believe that
about einstein)
Keep in mind the very first paragrah in Einstein's letter:
"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future." -Albert Einstein
Leo szillard and Einstein cooperated in Berlin and patented together a device, which is called 'Einsteins fridge'.
This 'fridge' doesn't cool, however. Its only known use is as part of a
fast breeding reactor.
So, possibly they had build an atomic bomb already in Berlin and needed
more plutonium there, hence such a breeding reactor was built and
Einstein provided his 'fridge'.
TH
Am Freitag000009, 09.08.2024 um 18:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the >>>> Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
Nobody, and i mean nobody wore sunscreen at the Manhattan Project.
feynman died and einstein died, and many others.. all from the same
reasons, not wearing sunscreen to protect them from...'waves from the
Sun.'
(of course, it goes without saying you're not suppose to believe that
about einstein)
Keep in mind the very first paragrah in Einstein's letter:
"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future." -Albert Einstein
Leo szillard and Einstein cooperated in Berlin and patented together a device, which is called 'Einsteins fridge'.
This 'fridge' doesn't cool, however. Its only known use is as part of a
fast breeding reactor.
So, possibly they had build an atomic bomb already in Berlin and needed
more plutonium there, hence such a breeding reactor was built and
Einstein provided his 'fridge'.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Freitag000009, 09.08.2024 um 18:38 schrieb The Starmaker:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Energy that Einstein was thinking of was only the 'waves from the >>>> Sun.'
I mean, let's be real here...
the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with is ..
'waves from the Sun.'
I mean, that is what HIS E= represents....'waves from the
Sun.'
Come on, he died from it!
Nobody, and i mean nobody wore sunscreen at the Manhattan Project.
feynman died and einstein died, and many others.. all from the same
reasons, not wearing sunscreen to protect them from...'waves from the
Sun.'
(of course, it goes without saying you're not suppose to believe that
about einstein)
Keep in mind the very first paragrah in Einstein's letter:
"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran-
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future." -Albert Einstein
Leo szillard and Einstein cooperated in Berlin and patented together a device, which is called 'Einsteins fridge'.
This 'fridge' doesn't cool, however. Its only known use is as part of a fast breeding reactor.
So you got all that wrong too.
There are several variants, and several patents.
The absorbtion cooler works quite well,
and other variants of it have been mass produced
for use in recreational vehicles.
The Einstein-Szilard liquid metal pump also works just fine.
Liquid metal pumps were used in fast breeder reactors
(when these still existed)
but they are also used in more mundane devices,
such as soldering machines.
Your phone may have been made using one.
So, possibly they had build an atomic bomb already in Berlin and needed more plutonium there, hence such a breeding reactor was built and
Einstein provided his 'fridge'.
This is not just completely wrong, it is completely ludicrous,
Jan
Keep in mind the very first paragrah in Einstein's letter:Leo szillard and Einstein cooperated in Berlin and patented together a
"Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been com-
municated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uran- >>>
ium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the im-
mediate future." -Albert Einstein
device, which is called 'Einsteins fridge'.
This 'fridge' doesn't cool, however. Its only known use is as part of a
fast breeding reactor.
So you got all that wrong too.
There are several variants, and several patents.
The absorbtion cooler works quite well,
and other variants of it have been mass produced
for use in recreational vehicles.
The Einstein-Szilard liquid metal pump also works just fine.
Liquid metal pumps were used in fast breeder reactors
(when these still existed)
but they are also used in more mundane devices,
such as soldering machines.
Your phone may have been made using one.
So, possibly they had build an atomic bomb already in Berlin and needed
more plutonium there, hence such a breeding reactor was built and
Einstein provided his 'fridge'.
This is not just completely wrong, it is completely ludicrous,
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 05:51:21 |
Calls: | 7,824 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,089 |