Relativity theory from other angles

[Ross Finlayson]

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

Then, with that and a vanishing yet
non-zero gradient the cosmological
constant, then relativity the theory
with the L-principle can be framed
as sort of deriving in reverse the
light speed from the mass/energy
equivalency according to the "spacial"
and "spatial", Einstein's terms for the
space for SR and space for GR, thusly
that GR is first then SR is derived from
it and also the L-principle or light's
constancy of speed, is also derived
as an invariant according to the space
terms, why that instead of "K.E." or
e = mc^2 is the c = root(e/m). Then
also that makes for fitting electron physics
right next to that with e/m the electron's
charge to mass ratio.





About absolutes and what's relative and
Einstein's usual "this Einstein's relativity
is a very simplest negative statement that
velocity is relative" has, ..., there are others.

There's only one absolute, though, ....

[bertietaylor]

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.

It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.


Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

Most people have never heard of
"Einstein's second-most famous
mass/energy equivalency formula"
that he outlays at the end of the
"Out of my Later Years" in terms
of the "Einstein's bridge" concept
if you've heard of that, m m' (1-c)
or what it is, Einstein's "second most
famous mass-energy equivalency formula,
that nobody's every heard of".

Most people have heard of "mc^2",
and furthermore have no idea that
it's m (c^2 + c'^4 + c''^6 ...), "the rest
of the infinitary expansion", in GR.

Anyways the idea is to sort of reverse that,
so it results instead that light speed
arises from the relations of mass,
so that the lifetime of radioisotopes
and electrical current, help to go to show
that of course there abstractly _is_ a
derivation the other way around,
that perhaps if they never even thought
that SR's "mc^2, period", and GR's "mc^2
and the rest of the expansion which it is",
then it could be gently introduced these
multiple ideas at once, in case it may otherwise
be so that some radical SR'ians may violently
react to being told that their SR-first theory
was missing 99+% of the many terms of
the infinitary expression, of mass-energy
equivalency, which is usually used to explain
what the power of atomic bomb is and then
also what the power of matter/anti-matter
reaction would be.

Mostly though because then it would help
that the development would work up some
natural units as for example it's simple that
"SR-ians keeps some things simple at the
cost of others" that according to this sort
of E-principle or Energy-principle for the usual
L-principle or Light-principle, that, because
it's well known already what that is, that
the quite challenging mathematical
derivation as of "run analysis backward",
would yet help show for a simple category
diagram, various ways these theories and
their various relativity theories together,
are interpreted in terms of each other.

[rhertz]

Go and read carefully the last part of the 1905 paper, where Einstein
derived L/c² = m.

He used ONLY the first term of a McLaurin series, which is valid for v/c
ratio lower than 0.1. Above this, the error using that interpretation of
Kinetic Energy (1/2 m v²) is unacceptable by any means.

The expression over which he worked is at the final part of the paper:


L.(Y-1) = L . 1/2 x² . (1 + 3/4 x² + 15/24 x⁴ + 105/192 x⁶ + ..)

where x = v/c

Einstein tried 7 times to correct this limitation, from 1906 to 1942,
when he finally gave up to find an expression of L/c² = m valid for the
whole range of v up to c.


If you try to affirm that, in the above expression, using more McLaurin
terms make L/c² = m valid for values of v > 0.1c, without incurring in
major physical and conceptual errors, you have to rethink it all over.

For instance, you could say that using x = v/c = 1/2 gives a
MULTIPLICAND of the basic KE, like


1/2 (L/c²) v² . (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)

then you are delusional and also violate every single concept of
newtonian mechanics since 1800, at least.

You CAN'T ABUSE of gullibility of people like Einstein did with such
disgusting paper, WHICH IS WRONG from any approach that you make on it.

In the best case, it would be directing you to think (erroneously) that
the RELATIVISTIC EXPRESSION OF MASS in Kinetic Energy is:

M = Mo (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)


M = Mo (1 + 3/16 + 15/384 + 105/12288 + ..)

It would not look pretty to derive a new equation

E = 1.235107422 Mo c²

****************

I would prefer Hassenhorl's derivation of E = 4/3 Mo c², developed in
March of 1905 and in the same Annalen der Physik, paper that Einstein
plagiarized BY THE OLD TRICK OF REVERSE ENGINEERING. Only that
Hassenhorl derived it FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM (A BLACK BOX), while Einstein
failed miserably by working with an OPEN SYSTEM (equations don't work).


But, it's just me.


A legion of imbeciles bought the crap written in only 2 pages, by
November 1905.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
Go and read carefully the last part of the 1905 paper, where Einstein
derived L/c² = m.
He used ONLY the first term of a McLaurin series, which is valid for v/c
ratio lower than 0.1. Above this, the error using that interpretation of
Kinetic Energy (1/2 m v²) is unacceptable by any means.
L.(Y-1) = L . 1/2 x² . (1 + 3/4 x² + 15/24 x⁴ + 105/192 x⁶ + ..)
where x = v/c
Einstein tried 7 times to correct this limitation, from 1906 to 1942,
when he finally gave up to find an expression of L/c² = m valid for the
whole range of v up to c.
If you try to affirm that, in the above expression, using more McLaurin
terms make L/c² = m valid for values of v > 0.1c, without incurring in
major physical and conceptual errors, you have to rethink it all over.
For instance, you could say that using x = v/c = 1/2 gives a
MULTIPLICAND of the basic KE, like
1/2 (L/c²) v² . (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)
then you are delusional and also violate every single concept of
newtonian mechanics since 1800, at least.
You CAN'T ABUSE of gullibility of people like Einstein did with such
disgusting paper, WHICH IS WRONG from any approach that you make on it.
In the best case, it would be directing you to think (erroneously) that
M = Mo (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)
M = Mo (1 + 3/16 + 15/384 + 105/12288 + ..)
It would not look pretty to derive a new equation
E = 1.235107422 Mo c²
****************
I would prefer Hassenhorl's derivation of E = 4/3 Mo c², developed in
March of 1905 and in the same Annalen der Physik, paper that Einstein
plagiarized BY THE OLD TRICK OF REVERSE ENGINEERING. Only that
Hassenhorl derived it FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM (A BLACK BOX), while Einstein
failed miserably by working with an OPEN SYSTEM (equations don't work).
But, it's just me.
A legion of imbeciles bought the crap written in only 2 pages, by
November 1905.

The MacLaurin is just the zero case for Taylor series, sure,
just like Clairaut is the zero case for Fourier series,
then that something like MacLaurin/Clairaut intends to
combine the features of the differential and power series
into a combined sort of analysis as with regards to then
what fits together of that, what decomposability there is
of that, as with regards to most usual developments in
the Fourier-style analysis and the Taylor-style analysis,
and others.


It reminds that the other day that one of Freundlich's
1923 papers was published to Gutenberg, about gravity
as was the theory of the day.

Here you mention, "reverse engineering", and it's sort
of the idea.


It's like, "when are Laplacians ever wrong if you
look at them from various other angles" and it's
like "well, if they have straight lines, ...".


So it looks like we're looking at quite a few now
other various derivations just kind of gathering
dust that under various conditions or representing
various systems, are real and invariant as the
parameters the implicits making where they're: natural.

Then the natural is really the goal, all about the natural.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

There are at least two definitions of entropy:
Aristotle's "what goes up must come down" and
Leibniz' "what goes in must grow up". Then these
days it's usually after Maupertuis' least action
as according to extremum principles instead of
equi-libria, "least action", then that there's
after Lagrange and after Hamilton and after some
more "severe abstraction in mechanical reduction",
then the statistical mechanics, where it works
out that "least action the gradient the always
increasing entropy", is just to give some running
room in the theory for at least one thing, in this
case entropy, because everything else is "conserved".

Then, "entropy" of course has at least two definitions,
and they're sort of the opposite of each other yet
both indicate the constitutive or de-constitutive,
then there's "gradient" which usually enough means
(derivative) or steepest descent or the grade, while
at the same time it's merely a clock hypothesis
combining theory-of-sum-potentials-with-least-action
with clock-hypothesis-and-a-gradient so it's all
simple how the oldest law of physics "what goes up
must come down", is this modern sort of sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, with a least action gradient then
that being time, while in terms of space, that
results gravity.

That it results it, ..., that it so results, ....

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

Aristotle's "what goes up must come down" and
Leibniz' "what goes in must grow up".

Don't think those two had a clue about the Carnot cycle.


Then these

Post by Ross Finlayson
days it's usually after Maupertuis' least action
as according to extremum principles instead of
equi-libria, "least action", then that there's
after Lagrange and after Hamilton and after some
more "severe abstraction in mechanical reduction",
then the statistical mechanics, where it works
out that "least action the gradient the always
increasing entropy", is just to give some running
room in the theory for at least one thing, in this
case entropy, because everything else is "conserved".
Then, "entropy" of course has at least two definitions,
and they're sort of the opposite of each other yet
both indicate the constitutive or de-constitutive,
then there's "gradient" which usually enough means
(derivative) or steepest descent or the grade, while
at the same time it's merely a clock hypothesis
combining theory-of-sum-potentials-with-least-action
with clock-hypothesis-and-a-gradient so it's all
simple how the oldest law of physics "what goes up
must come down", is this modern sort of sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, with a least action gradient then
that being time, while in terms of space, that
results gravity.
That it results it, ..., that it so results, ....

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

Since it always changes how is it pure
Since kinetic energy is always relative how can it be fixed?
As it only increases entropy at the end via radiation as per the laws of
thermo it effectively becomes useless. What is constant about energy as
compared to charge, mass, force, torque, distance, etc.?

Post by Ross Finlayson
It's pure something, so, there's a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
so historically there's the dunamis and the dynamis about what
is the energeia and the entelechiae, that is to say,
the energy is the stateful and the entelechia is the connections,
while the dunamis and dynamis both "potential" are sort of
the prior and posterior the histories and potentials the futures,
so, it's already the given name for what it is and it's the
same historical concept as it's been since antiquity in our academy
in our canon and adherency dogma and doctrine.
It adds up simply and everything in terms of energy just has
it's just a simple kind of thing to add up.
Then about why the usual mc^2 is only the first term of
the Taylor series the expansion of terms the formula for
the kinetic energy K.E. of a massy object what would
be its equivalency "at light speed", that's often said
to be due Einstein, yet then these days often there are
people who think SR is "defined" to be this way instead
of that GR makes it so "derived" this way, yet though
the point here is that all the following terms in
the series in their dimensional analysis, now need
a fuller explanation in dimensional analysis.

Aristotle's "what goes up must come down" and
Leibniz' "what goes in must grow up".

Don't think those two had a clue about the Carnot cycle.
Then these

Post by Ross Finlayson
days it's usually after Maupertuis' least action
as according to extremum principles instead of
equi-libria, "least action", then that there's
after Lagrange and after Hamilton and after some
more "severe abstraction in mechanical reduction",
then the statistical mechanics, where it works
out that "least action the gradient the always
increasing entropy", is just to give some running
room in the theory for at least one thing, in this
case entropy, because everything else is "conserved".
Then, "entropy" of course has at least two definitions,
and they're sort of the opposite of each other yet
both indicate the constitutive or de-constitutive,
then there's "gradient" which usually enough means
(derivative) or steepest descent or the grade, while
at the same time it's merely a clock hypothesis
combining theory-of-sum-potentials-with-least-action
with clock-hypothesis-and-a-gradient so it's all
simple how the oldest law of physics "what goes up
must come down", is this modern sort of sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials, with a least action gradient then
that being time, while in terms of space, that
results gravity.
That it results it, ..., that it so results, ....

The Carnot cycle or Sadi Carnot cycle is a great
thing and as with regards to not merely the adiabatic
yet also the fuel-air idea and what's the Otto cycle,
yet it's also exactly so that it's _not_ the end-all
be-all of why entropy is defined the way it is.

I.e., Hooke's law, Clausius, and Kelvin, as with
regards to the Carnot cycle and the steam tables,
and "the derivation" or why "2'nd law thermo entropy"
is the most usual under-pinning of the entire stack
of the classical statistical ensemble, has that it's
also to find various places where the "natural" definition
of entropy, or information, is the opposite one.

I.e., that entropy always is tending towards infinity,
yet there's organization at all, has that in systems
of organization, entropy if always tending towards infinity,
yet it means the opposite. Similarly, the linkage of
entropy, and "information", is quite contrived, and
reversible, where there's more "information" in a
star, say, than a cloud of interstellar dust, because
the dynamics are considered information, and entropy.

So anyways it is what it is and the entire course of
mechanics then statistical mechanics of course is what
it is, yet, it's also weak and some of the terms,
like entropy and information, or momentum, have
great under-defined voids just waiting for modern
mathematical physicists of the thorough sort to
improve them.

[bertietaylor]

So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.

From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by bertietaylor
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity, that this is for improving _mathematics_
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity, that this is for improving _mathematics_
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.

What's intended is you actually can gather each these
search terms and enter each these search expressions
and find each these search hits and gather each these
search results and notice for example that physics,
is both very very uniform, and very very mute on
many many subjects, the theory, then that all sorts
of usual opinions are just that, and there are a lot
of them in physics, not mathematics, not physics,
not science, merely opinion, and the popular (if
you don't find that entirely the wrong word) press
of science gets more and more biased and un-unscientific
in its language, that anyways there are lots and lots
of opinions in physics, and like any other opinion
there are others, which as much as they are mathematical
and are physical and are scientific, are so.


Of course physics needs a great deal from mathematics
about continuum mechanics that it's missing and
that mathematics _owes_ physics better and more
law(s) of large numbers to help facilitate the
zero'eth law(s) of mechanics to help arrive at
thusly the more law(s) of probability as via the
more law(s) of convergence and emergence what result
the more law(s) of physics, plural.


Gravity, for example is such a good idea,
that it's a _law_.


Then you might say "well all's fair in war and
and they don't know we're atheists on the Internet
and we don't need no stinking laws and we'll just
log-normal the g-2 and coat-tail and paper-trail
until we get a giant gold scissors" and it's like
"you know you might be right that you need not the law(s)".


That's not a mathematical physics anymore, yet
for some people that's not the ends they intend to mean.

[Bertietaylor]

Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Bertietaylor: It certainly is utter nonsense.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Bertietaylor: It certainly is utter nonsense.

If you don't fix mathematics for continuum mechanics,
with the infinitary, then don't expect much.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Bertietaylor
Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.

Just as massively cruel measures were taken to establish Marxist states,
the same basic approaches - hounding sensible rational decent scientists
out of the reckoning if they dared to express doubt about Einstein's
physics - have been taken by the e=MCC thumpers. Tesla was a victim.
Arindam has been similarly persecuted.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Bertietaylor
Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.

Just as massively cruel measures were taken to establish Marxist states,
the same basic approaches - hounding sensible rational decent scientists
out of the reckoning if they dared to express doubt about Einstein's
physics - have been taken by the e=MCC thumpers. Tesla was a victim.
Arindam has been similarly persecuted.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Hmm. Maybe frame it on the opposite: instead of "Einstein's legacy
is being abused by coat-tailing paper-hangers", make it along the
lines of something positive, like "Faraday and FitzGerald are being
found again today as with a pretty easy mathematical fix, making all
sorts of new ways to interpret old theory".

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Bertietaylor
Point is that Einstein's physics being nonsense it cannot point out
direct new incontrovertible scientific facts as with Galileo's
telescope, Barometer, etc.

Just as massively cruel measures were taken to establish Marxist states,
the same basic approaches - hounding sensible rational decent scientists
out of the reckoning if they dared to express doubt about Einstein's
physics - have been taken by the e=MCC thumpers. Tesla was a victim.
Arindam has been similarly persecuted.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor

Hmm. Maybe frame it on the opposite: instead of "Einstein's legacy
is being abused by coat-tailing paper-hangers", make it along the
lines of something positive, like "Faraday and FitzGerald are being
found again today as with a pretty easy mathematical fix, making all
sorts of new ways to interpret old theory".

Inertia violation with Arindam's rail gun experiments is a fact like
Torricelli barometer.
That fact justifies the observation that energy gets created and
destroyed or lost in the infinite vastness of space.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,

It is bunkum mechanics, just pure nonsense.

Post by Ross Finlayson
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"

All nonsense theories. Replace them with Arindam's physics updating
Newton and trashing the whole of Einstein-Feynman pseudo physics.

Post by Ross Finlayson
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity,

Photons are brief em pulses.
Gravity is an electrostatic effect.
Arindam has explained both in detail.




that this is for improving _mathematics_

Post by Ross Finlayson
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.

Well out with inertia, entropy, relativity and quantum. Out with the
laws of thermodynamics and certainly out with e=MCC=Hv.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,

It is bunkum mechanics, just pure nonsense.

Post by Ross Finlayson
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"

All nonsense theories. Replace them with Arindam's physics updating
Newton and trashing the whole of Einstein-Feynman pseudo physics.

Post by Ross Finlayson
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity,

Photons are brief em pulses.
Gravity is an electrostatic effect.
Arindam has explained both in detail.
that this is for improving _mathematics_

Post by Ross Finlayson
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.

Well out with inertia, entropy, relativity and quantum. Out with the
laws of thermodynamics and certainly out with e=MCC=Hv.

Yeah, out with physics, right.

[Bertietaylor]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor
So if we forget iwrong Aristotle and obsolete steam engines explained by
Carnot, we need have no use for conservation of energy laws and entropy
- we say bye-bye to the laws of thermodynamics, following Arindam's
inertia violation experiment.
From that advance, getting rid of the depravity of relativity and the
bunkum of quantum is but a step.
Woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)

No, that's foolish, also that's a mis-reading,
what is meant is that there are other regimes of relative
and that quantum mechanics is a continuum mechanics,

It is bunkum mechanics, just pure nonsense.

Post by Ross Finlayson
then as with regards to that this mostly means revisiting
earlier abandoned theories, like vis-viva, Lagrange principle,
superstring/supercorde theory as a continuum mechanics,
pseudomomentum, Heaviside/Larmor/Faraday field theories,
aether field theory, the "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs"

All nonsense theories. Replace them with Arindam's physics updating
Newton and trashing the whole of Einstein-Feynman pseudo physics.

Post by Ross Finlayson
which since I mentioned that decades ago has seen Aspect-like
photons as definitely waves and all, JWST panning Hubble,
and Higgs and Little Higgs, for a theory with a gravity
like a fall-gravity,

Photons are brief em pulses.
Gravity is an electrostatic effect.
Arindam has explained both in detail.
that this is for improving _mathematics_

Post by Ross Finlayson
and resultig improving _mathematical physics_, and
_explaining_ it in apologetics, in foundations.

Well out with inertia, entropy, relativity and quantum. Out with the
laws of thermodynamics and certainly out with e=MCC=Hv.

Yeah, out with physics, right.

What passes for physics, yes, most certainly.

Follow Arindam.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

I personally regard E= m*c² as wrong.

It should be:
delta(E) = -delta(m)*c²

But actually I think, that the imaginary unit i should be used here, too.

Energie is in a way 'rotated' mass, if you multiply mass by i and regard
i as factor, which would rotate by an angle of 90°.

I named the 'unrotated' pattern 'mass term' and let it point upwards (be
timelike).

So mass is timelike and charge (potential) spacelike.

Inbetween we have 'light-like' and that is the realm, where energy is
radiated away.

But non-radiating energy should also be able exist somewhere (as
'potential') and that is the timeless realm, which we call 'spacelike'.

And that is the hyperplane of the present, if we regard the axis of time
as normal to it and imaginary.
...


TH

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

I personally regard E= m*c² as wrong.
delta(E) = -delta(m)*c²
But actually I think, that the imaginary unit i should be used here, too.
Energie is in a way 'rotated' mass, if you multiply mass by i and regard
i as factor, which would rotate by an angle of 90°.
I named the 'unrotated' pattern 'mass term' and let it point upwards (be
timelike).
So mass is timelike and charge (potential) spacelike.
Inbetween we have 'light-like' and that is the realm, where energy is
radiated away.
But non-radiating energy should also be able exist somewhere (as
'potential') and that is the timeless realm, which we call 'spacelike'.
And that is the hyperplane of the present, if we regard the axis of time
as normal to it and imaginary.
...
TH

Well, it is what it is, an approximation, e = mc^2, and that
there's apocryphally some testing of it via experiment,
then though it's so that the changes in energy's state
and configuration and location as a packet-of-potentials,
has various forms (formulas).


Then it seems you idea invokes DesCartes' or Kelvin's vortices,
with regards to the two usual ideas, one being that the
linear goes into the rotational, and the other that the
rotational goes into the linear, and the usual idea of
the equal and opposite linear, then as well for the usual
the equal and opposite linear at the head of a packet-train
of the rotational the vorticial, with the idea that the
equal and opposite reactions,
are systemic.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by bertietaylor

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

What exactly makes you think that mass and energy are equivalent?

It's sort of simpler to have everything "pure energy"
that everything "pure mass" or "pure charge" or
"pure velocity of an organized image" or
"pure lifetime of a nuclear radioisotope",
it's sort of central and sits neatly in the space,
it's chargeless, massless, has no velocity, always changes.

I personally regard E= m*c² as wrong.
delta(E) = -delta(m)*c²
But actually I think, that the imaginary unit i should be used here, too.
Energie is in a way 'rotated' mass, if you multiply mass by i and regard
i as factor, which would rotate by an angle of 90°.
I named the 'unrotated' pattern 'mass term' and let it point upwards (be
timelike).
So mass is timelike and charge (potential) spacelike.
Inbetween we have 'light-like' and that is the realm, where energy is
radiated away.
But non-radiating energy should also be able exist somewhere (as
'potential') and that is the timeless realm, which we call 'spacelike'.
And that is the hyperplane of the present, if we regard the axis of time
as normal to it and imaginary.
...
TH

Well, it is what it is, an approximation, e = mc^2, and that
there's apocryphally some testing of it via experiment,
then though it's so that the changes in energy's state
and configuration and location as a packet-of-potentials,
has various forms (formulas).
Then it seems you idea invokes DesCartes' or Kelvin's vortices,
with regards to the two usual ideas, one being that the
linear goes into the rotational, and the other that the
rotational goes into the linear, and the usual idea of
the equal and opposite linear, then as well for the usual
the equal and opposite linear at the head of a packet-train
of the rotational the vorticial, with the idea that the
equal and opposite reactions,
are systemic.

Actually I have never heard about 'Kelvin's vortices'.

It sounds a little similar to my own idea, but not that close.

Most 19th century physicists were 'aetherists', while I would call
myself 'relativist'.

I personally use 'spacetime of GR' as kind of 'relativistic aether'.

But then I would agree to Kelvin.

About Descartes I have no idea.

(Possibly I should have a look on what he wrote about atoms.)

See here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


TH

[rhertz]

USING DATA KNOWN AROUND 1905 (Electrostatic Units)



Charge of an electron (e) = 1.6E-19 C = 4.8E-10 g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1

Mass of an electron (m) = 9.1E-28 g

Radius of an electron (before relativity crap) = 10E-16 cm (now 1000
more)

Energy stored in an electron: E = q^2/r


E = 2.31E-19/10E-16 g cm^2 s^-2 = 2.31E-03 g cm^2 s^-2

E/m = 2.31E-03/9.1E-28 g cm^2 s^-2 = 2.53+21 cm^2 s^-2

NO RELATIVITY OR 0.511 MeV rest energy crap:


c = (E/m)^1/2 = 5.03E+10 cm/s = 503,000 Km/s


IT HAS A BETTER MARGIN OF ERROR THAN ANY CRAPPY RELATIVISTIC EXPERIMENT.


IT DOES GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO THINK, ISN'T IT? AND IT USES THE REAL
ELECTRIC ENERGY THAT AN ELECTRON HAS STORED IN ITS VOLUME.



THIS CAN BE IMPROVED SO THE ERROR IS LOWER (COOKING DATA?). AFTER ALL,
RELATIVISTS ARE USED TO IT.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
USING DATA KNOWN AROUND 1905 (Electrostatic Units)
Charge of an electron (e) = 1.6E-19 C = 4.8E-10 g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1
Mass of an electron (m) = 9.1E-28 g
Radius of an electron (before relativity crap) = 10E-16 cm (now 1000
more)
Energy stored in an electron: E = q^2/r
E = 2.31E-19/10E-16 g cm^2 s^-2 = 2.31E-03 g cm^2 s^-2
E/m = 2.31E-03/9.1E-28 g cm^2 s^-2 = 2.53+21 cm^2 s^-2
c = (E/m)^1/2 = 5.03E+10 cm/s = 503,000 Km/s
IT HAS A BETTER MARGIN OF ERROR THAN ANY CRAPPY RELATIVISTIC EXPERIMENT.
IT DOES GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO THINK, ISN'T IT? AND IT USES THE REAL
ELECTRIC ENERGY THAT AN ELECTRON HAS STORED IN ITS VOLUME.
THIS CAN BE IMPROVED SO THE ERROR IS LOWER (COOKING DATA?). AFTER ALL,
RELATIVISTS ARE USED TO IT.

According to Heaviside they computed the speed of the electrical
field actually overlaps the tachyonic, while the activity in
the field is yet bradyonic, just expressing why there's a
Heaviside regime in the outside the Maxwellian sort of
like there's a trans-Planckian regime outside the Planckian
and that it's all sort of in terms of Angstroms, ....

I think that most people if they saw that the
Heaviside and friends like Larmor and Faraday
computed the velocity of the electrical field
as (if only very slightly i.e. within 1 or 2
orders of magnitude) greater than the velocity of light,
anyways they wouldn't care mostly because
they'd just figure that it was another empirical
thing.

Yet, for mathematical physicists it sort of sticks out
as like, "Heaviside tension".

Heaviside and Larmor and Faraday are pretty great,
and Maxwell's good too, so Maxwell's pretty great,
and then though most of the real electrical and
magnetic fields, as they are, are the potential
fields, and as with regards to Wheeler and Feynman
and all that, and besides Feynman's usual willingness
to put an explanation in electron physics on anything,
that he also sidles right up to the non-classical and
extra-classical and super-classical of the field
theory, and a continuum mechanics, and is always
like "and notice what I don't say here".

[J. J. Lodder]

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

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

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

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

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

The relativity postulate is just "motion is not absolute".

That's not necessarily so having stuck space-time
with the g_uv and so on as with regards to what
may still make "a Lorentzian for a Minkowski space",
for example with the Zollfrei (zoll-free) setting
up an "asymptotic freedom" while still having
Einstein's theory of Relativity as how he last put it,
that the principle is that "motion is not absolute:
a simple negative principle of relativity", and that
Einstein is not an SR-ian in the sequel, has GR first,
has SR local, has a _separate_ "spatial of GR" and
"spacial of SR", and makes for that a Fitzgeraldian
style of Lorentzian can make for a real space contraction
then that, as in this line of posting and deriving from
the other side: makes yet they all "conform", as with
regards of course what must be to "the conformal".


The tough part is figuring out how to start
the little end of the infinite series.

That's sort of simple, through, just like Einstein
put it, "tensors make all these transforms coordinate-free,
don't ask me how they're implemented though, that's
just how they're defined".


In the absolutes and ideals and absolutes and relative
there are quite a few combinations of negative statements
about the absolute what any one of those results a
theory of "a relativism". I.e., the wider world
of "relativity theories, plural", has that there
are quite a few as they are sorts of "heno-theories",
where what's primary and fundamental and absolute can
sort of rotate around and each one of those yet a physics.


That's it demands a bit of imagination, creativity,
and as well a thorough mathematical development,
which is ambitious, is a bit different than your "dead".