Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: FREE: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Graph - No Interest?
Next: Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount ofenergy?
From: BURT on 1 May 2010 19:17 E = MC Squared Why is mass related by the square of light speed? God chose this fundamental.
From: spudnik on 1 May 2010 22:08 the original "KE" equation is known as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first power of speed (Galileo i.e., I think). > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. thus: well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in your proof, that only applies to a small class of them. thus: now that you've read some of it; so? > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. thus: he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, still, very good -- if actually so .-) > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » thus: with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; PdF certainly could have done it. > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? DRMARJOHN thus: so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? --Light: A History! http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com
From: BURT on 1 May 2010 22:52 On May 1, 7:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > the original "KE" equation is known > as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought > it was just the first power of speed (Galileo i.e., > I think). > > > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. > > thus: > well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, > early in your proof, that only applies > to a small class of them. > > thus: > now that you've read some of it; so? > > > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. > > thus: > he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," > of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated > by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, > still, very good -- if actually so .-) > > > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. > > thus: > so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and > **** happened? > read more » > > thus: > with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, > it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; > PdF certainly could have done it. > > > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? DRMARJOHN > > thus: > so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, > can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com How can light have kinetic energy if it is a constant? C would mean all the same energy for every light wave. And this clearly is not the truth. Mitch Raemsch
From: rabid_fan on 1 May 2010 23:14 On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:08:55 -0700, spudnik wrote: > the original "KE" equation is known > as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first > power of speed (Galileo i.e., I think). > Energy (mechanical) = Force * displacement For one dimension: E = F * dx = F * v * dt, where v is velocity in that dimension. From this the classical kinetic energy can be derived. > >> Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. > > thus: > well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in > your proof, that only applies to a small class of them. > Usually, when discussing elementary relativity, the motion of material bodies is assumed. Thus, mechanical, or kinetic, energy seems most appropriate.
From: BURT on 1 May 2010 23:29
On May 1, 8:14 pm, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:08:55 -0700, spudnik wrote: > > the original "KE" equation is known > > as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first > > power of speed (Galileo i.e., I think). > > Energy (mechanical) = Force * displacement > > For one dimension: > > E = F * dx = F * v * dt, where v is velocity in that dimension. > > From this the classical kinetic energy can be derived. > > > > >> Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. > > > thus: > > well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in > > your proof, that only applies to a small class of them. > > Usually, when discussing elementary relativity, the motion of > material bodies is assumed. Thus, mechanical, or kinetic, energy > seems most appropriate. Energy of motion is by gamma for speed and is mass. Mitch Raemsch |