• Energy?

    From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 28 09:37:36 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Stefan Ram on Sun Jul 28 21:36:06 2024
    Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> 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."?

    It is nonsense, from a practical point of view.
    Maybe you need a better textbook?

    E = 0 merely means an energy which is too low to be detectable.
    We know that there must be infinitely many of those photons.
    See under 'infra-red catastrophe', in which infinitely many IR photons
    still have a finite energy,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Stefan Ram on Mon Jul 29 17:14:51 2024
    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.

    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Tue Jul 30 22:29:45 2024
    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?



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 31 10:30:15 2024
    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    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.

    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).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Wed Jul 31 10:02:01 2024
    The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> 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∞˜ · 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?

    Einstein did not need to define energy.
    He, and all physicists who mattered, knew what it was.
    Ever since Huygens, who first cleared it up.

    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.

    It is operational, and properly circular,
    as it should be.
    It is adequate as long as general relativity is not involved.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Wed Jul 31 21:02:03 2024
    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:

    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.

    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.
    But after you have done that the books must balance once again,
    now including he new form,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 31 22:43:47 2024
    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:
    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:
    Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
    of
    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?

    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.
    With the definition above - your "law" is
    a simple truism, and some fanatic idiots
    screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 31 22:37:35 2024
    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 21:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    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:

    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.

    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.


    Tell me, poor halfbrain - do you think
    your so called "law" is "falsifiable" with
    the definition above?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 1 07:15:46 2024
    W dniu 01.08.2024 o 05:12, gharnagel pisze:
    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.

    A lie, as expected from a relativistic
    piece of shit in general and from
    Harrie especially.
    I said it's a truism, why wouldn't I
    believe a truism?


    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.

    Oh, reaally, Harrie?
    Can measuring "1/2 m v^2, and everything else that
    is missing from the law of conservation of energy"
    give something different than the conservation
    of energy?
    Do Jedi knight wave their lightsabers too?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 31 13:46:41 2024
    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:


    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.

    Which makes your alleged "Law of Nature"
    - a simple language truism.

    And it's not a critique.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Aug 1 10:45:05 2024
    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?











    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Aug 1 17:03:40 2024
    Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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, ....


    I was refering to your posts..you have an 'unusual' writing style.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Aug 2 10:05:56 2024
    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,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 2 11:05:26 2024
    W dniu 02.08.2024 o 10:05, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    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,

    Even a relativistic idiots can (partially) think
    sometimes.
    That's right. Your alleged "Law of Nature"
    allegedly revealed to you by Nature Herself - is
    really a simple language truism.
    You really have no clue of what science is doing
    to you and what it is using you for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 2 13:32:08 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 2 15:22:22 2024
    W dniu 02.08.2024 o 13:32, Python pisze:
    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.

    It's complicated and you're dumb. Unless
    you ever learn to at least try listening
    to wiser ones - it would be a waste of
    time.
    Anyway, what I said about the conservation
    of energy is a general rule: your alleged
    "Laws of Nature" are just tautologies of
    the mad newspeak produced by your mad
    ideology.
    Yes, they are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Aug 2 08:52:03 2024
    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.


    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!


    I'm afraid to ask you ..."What is a woman?"








    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Aug 3 12:43:25 2024
    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∞˜ · 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 3 16:30:20 2024
    W dniu 03.08.2024 o 12:43, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    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∞˜ · 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,

    And, similiarly, somethinf your bunch of idiots
    is calling "time" - is not a time in the real sense
    ubless it's absolute/obswever independent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 3 16:38:25 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 3 17:37:02 2024
    W dniu 03.08.2024 o 16:38, Python pisze:
    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.

    Take your precious measurements and put them
    straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where
    they belong. With real times, like UTimeC,
    TimeAI, zone times - they have very little in
    common.

    And, whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
    to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
    would be, and he has written it clearly
    enough for anyone able to read (even if not
    clearly enough for you, poor stinker).


    Maybe you will, one day, understand what SR is after all Wozniak.


    Oh, some idiots worshipping that mumble
    don't change the fact that it wasn't even
    consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 4 11:22:35 2024
    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∞˜ · 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 4 22:13:01 2024
    W dniu 04.08.2024 o 20:03, gharnagel pisze:

    “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
    thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;

    Whoever mr Krauss is - he is, well, mistaken.
    "someone thought it would be a good idea for
    the universe to obey these rules" - is exactly
    why they were invented.

    rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
    -- Lawrence M. Krauss

    Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsensical
    lie, Harrie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 5 09:01:47 2024
    Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 17:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    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∞˜ · 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.



    It is in fact based on a continuum, but with internal structure.

    The 'mechanism' which creates this structure is assumed to be the kind
    of interaction.

    This is similar to quaternion multiplication 'sideways'.

    This is anti-symmetric and can create kind of 'moebius-strip-behaviour'.

    With this concept I have tried to establish a connection between GR and QM.

    This is realtively simple and goes like this:

    assume, that spacetime of GR is a real physical system, which is
    composed of pointlike elements.

    These elements can have features and behave like if they were a certain
    type of quaternions called 'bi-quaternions' which interact with their
    direct neighbours in a certain way.

    This is similar to a mathematical concept called 'geometric algebra'
    with complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra.

    Now I assume, that the universe behaves like this and therefore tried to
    build particles out of spacetime.

    Out came 'structured spacetime'.

    And as far as I can tell, the concept works quite well.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Aug 5 08:45:11 2024
    Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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∞˜ · 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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 6 10:15:56 2024
    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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Wed Aug 7 11:13:24 2024
    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 -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Fri Aug 9 09:38:51 2024
    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


    https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first





    the only Energy he EVER thinks about, he's obssessed with


    since 1905...

    "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium). -- Albert Einstein (1905)




    E = Atomic Bomb.






    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 10 10:37:23 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Aug 10 09:59:48 2024
    Thomas Heger 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, 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

    So you're saying, when Einstein is quotes to saying "The Germans might
    be already building a atomic bomb" ...Einstein was talking about

    himself...as the Germans.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Aug 16 11:05:01 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Aug 16 07:33:56 2024
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    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.

    patent infridge-ment.



    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


    The Peruvian people make better fries than the French.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 17 08:33:27 2024
    Am Freitag000016, 16.08.2024 um 11:05 schrieb J. J. Lodder:


    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,

    There was a group of students some years ago, who had rebuilt the Einstein-Szillard device as a project and complained, that it wouldn't cool.

    At that time I had read an article, that the Einstein-Szillard device
    has only one known use:

    as part of a fast breeding reactor.

    So: what if 'fridge' was just a fake name, and the device WAS in fact
    meant as part for a fast breeding reactors?

    This would mean, that atomic bombs were known well before the manhattan
    project and especially by Szillard and Einstein.

    Is this possible????

    I would say: yes, it is.

    I had always the impression, that the entire Manhattan project was
    actually used to 'gag' the physicists and not meant to discover anything.

    I also think, the Nazis had already atomic bombs, but didn't want to use
    them.

    (Atomic bombs are actually stupid weapons and are for all practical
    purposes impossible to use.)

    and other variants of it have been mass produced
    for use in recreational vehicles.

    Absorption cooling devices were of course known before Einstein's 'fridge'.

    It is this particular design, what we're talking about.


    The Einstein-Szilard liquid metal pump also works just fine.
    Liquid metal pumps were used in fast breeder reactors
    (when these still existed)

    Which recreational vehicle uses a metal pump???

    but they are also used in more mundane devices,
    such as soldering machines.
    Your phone may have been made using one.

    Possibly Einstein had a soldering machine, too??
    (for smartphones?)


    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,

    Well, who knows?

    There was already the case of 'Tunguska' and a possible explanation as explosion of an atomic bomb.

    There were other incidents, which could possibly had been detonations of nuclear devices.

    This is all not known and too long ago to investigate this today.

    And the governments involved have certainly no incentive to support such investigations.

    So what?



    TH

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