studiot

The point is that clockwise v widdershins is part of a larger fact of life in the Physical universe. You are right about the mirror. Here is an interesting experiment with one. Take a reasonable diameter bolt with a wing nut on it. (I just tried this with an aerial clamp) Hold it out level in front of you. Now take the wing that is on the right and move it over to the left. You should notice that this instruction is incompelte. There are two ways to move it over. After several rotations you should notice that one way makes the wingnut proceed forwards along the bolt. The other way makes it move backwards. That is why we we need our mathematics to distinguish the two directions of rotation, anddirection of travel of the screw forms the definition and distinction of clockwise and widdershins. The choice is purely arbitrary. However I mentioned this is part of a larger class of such phenomena, which are hugely important in Mathematical Physics. Another simple example is that of the area of something. An large number of physical phenomena a related to the line at right angles to the surface. We choose the 'outward pointing normal' by convention as ther is another, equally valid one pointing inwards. Or if you like, pointing outwards on the other side of the surface.

Moving in whose frame of reference? Time 'stands still' for an object moving at lightspeed. That is from the point of view of its own frame of reference This means it takes zero time to get from A to B or that the object is at every point along its track at once. It is only moving relative to another object with mass That is in the frame of reference of the particle with mass.

This is the killer step in the theoretical Physics answer to the original question, to come in the next post in my development. The obvious Physics version of the question is "Why do we want it to be Minkowskian ?" That was Einstein's breakthrough, which preceded Minkowski. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Minkowski was a mathematician. I realise that the OP is wandering between SR, GR, cosmology and even quantum developments, but the basics should come first and the chain of physical reasoning that leads to modern relativity should lead the mathematics, not the other way round.

You have allowed your speculation to run away with you by this stage of your presentation. Are you referring to this? Richard C Tolman : Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology.

Here is some useful information on these formulae. https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt2/fb-26/ag-262/the-quantum-hall-resistance.html

I too welcome Markus back and his first post shows he was thinking somewhat along the same lines as myself. However the world has moved on since Einstein and much of Markus’ material is post Einstein and I have promised the basic breakthrough in thinking which was due to the great man himself. So to start with a quote from what he actually said (the 1905 SR paper) I will try to explain just how well thought out and put together these few words are and that they really do justify the claim in the final line that these two postulates are in effect all you need to know. 1) First note that Einstein acknowledges preceding work and that a weaker Principle of Relativity (for mechanical systems) was already known. His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones. 2) He recognises that further postulates must perforce be compatible with the first. Since there are only two postulates this means that they must be compatible with each other. 3) He then posits his second postulate which introduces the speed of light as c but note that he does not say this is constant, just definite. Note also that he does not say explicitly that c is the same for all observers. These are the three key steps that must be taken as a whole to understanding SR. The rest of the paper is devoted to the consequences of these three steps taken together. It is here he develops the ad hoc Lorenz equations, the equality of the c for all observers and other important things, which includes the constancy of c as a necessity built into the mathematical model developed. The constancy of c is the subject of this thread and swansont has already observed that the mathematics of Physics would be (very) different if this were not so. I propose to examine more closely how this arises in my next post.

But it wasn't the second postulate itself and is not a good way to present it. I have been responding to other speculations ( negative mass and earth science) this morning as they are easier than preparing a sensible guide to the chain of reasoning that leads to special relativity. I will take the time today, so look again later on - it is a fascinating story that leads eventually to the maths stated. But, as Einstein said, the Physics must come first.

Please explain what you mean by 'electrostatic self energy'? Edit Please note that I haven't flatly rejected negative mass, though I do take issue with your more outrageous suggestions. You might like to know that negative mass dates back to the early 1500s when Paracelcus proposed it as an explanation for the newly discovered fact that metals gain weight when calcined. This was a suprising fact to the wisdom dating back two thousand years to when it was known that calcining limestone cased the stone to loose weight, and that is indeed where the term calcining originated. The proposal ran that since many substances were observed to give off a gas and loose weight when heated, metals must therefore give off something with negative weight. Of course, we have a better explanation today. Negative mass came to the fore again in the early 20th century when offered as an explanation for the 'anomalous Hall effect' where charge particles appeared to move the opposite way to which they were pushed. Again we have a better explanation (though not yet a full predictive one) today. Engineers and scientists have known for a couple of hundred years, of a proceedure called virtual work. This mathematical sleight of hand can be very useful in substantially shortening calculations, but it remains just that. A mathematical device. So too negative mass may ease som calculation in cosmology, but that does not make it de facto correct.

It is most certainly observed in the lakes around me. You have forgotten evaporation. And there's me thinking that the 'coast' is at sensibly the same level everywhere ie water surface level since it is the interface between water and land. I think you mean something other than the 'depth' of the coast. The north coast of The Netherlands is essentially one long beach stretching for over 100 km from the Hague to Den Helder. It has a tidal range around 2 metres. This is one of the quintessential linear coasts. https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Zandvoort/tides/latest Whilst it is good to see some activity in the Earth Science section, why two posts on the same subject? And what exactly is that subject, please?

You have allowed your speculation to run away with you by this stage of your presentation. Talking of speculation, why is this not in speculations, where it belongs?

This is a very bold assertion to drop so casually into the conversation. Please post your detailed explanation and justification for making it. I expect to see substance in your post without having to leave this website to look up references, in accordance with the rules of this forum. Though of course a reference as backup to your own working would be good. Is that really a bold assertion? Which aspect of it by the way please, the Van der Waals force interaction, or the photon interaction? Van der Waals forces I trust are themselves only simple dipole electromagnetic forces. That we see them at the boundary of matter should be nothing unusual. And therefore they're the same basic forces which are responsible for all the other photon interactions as well, including reflection, diffraction, interference patterns, etc. Apologies if that seems surprising for me to suggest, but I genuinely don't believe there is any other logical and physical explanation for these interactions other than electromagnetic interaction. And this explanation is so simple and elegant and seems to check all the boxes that in hind-sight it seems so very obvious to me now. My detailed hypothesis paper in the link contains plenty of additional substance regarding this, but I can't post all 17 pages of it here I presume. P.S. And thank you everyone for keeping this discussion cordial and constructive by the way. I'd been anticipating plenty of insults and condescension so I'm very pleased that on this forum this has not been the case! Well this is a good go at a discussion. But I think we need to clear up some terminology before proceeding. There is no such thing as an 'electromagnetic' dipole. The dipoles, quadrupoles and octupoles involved in VDW forces are coulombic in nature. It is this interaction between molecules that accounts for the VDW forces which have been experimentally verified as conforming to the r-6 potential relationship which also appears in the Lennard Jones equation. The point of that extract was to highlight how small and short range these forces are and how they do not lead to the stable regular arrays which allow the diffraction of EM radiation (since you mention diffraction). The practical result of this is that we have only just begun to look for spectroscopic evidence of interaction so you would need to search doctoral thesis papers for this. For example. http://www.iqst.ca/media/pdf/publications/JalalNoroozOliaee.pdf There is also an effect, called Van Der Waals deshielding which can be observed by NMR spectroscopy, but this is not due to an interaction between photons and the VDW force, but due to interaction of protons with the probing magnetic field.

Asking questions is really good. +1 But what about the first postulate of special relativity? The mathematical expression you quoted is neither the first nor the second postulate. So where do you want to start to understand where it comes from?

Maybe. But it is not magic. And why is it more interesting that to note than say 4 = 2x2 =2+2 or 6 = 2x3 = 22 + 2 = 1+2+3 or that 13 is not (interestingly) related to any other number but 1 and itself. or that Pi = 2 x Wallis product? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_product

A hyperbola is the locus of a point that moves (in a plane) such that the ratio of its distance from some fixed point, S, to its (perpendicular) distance from a fixed straight line , ZQ, is a constant, greater than 1. Butch it is up to you to prove that your equation which I take to be y = 1/x2 satisfies this condition. Edit yes your cross posting statement that this is an inverse square relationship is much better.

Not at all magical. You offered a geometric interpretation of pi, but not one for e. Geometry connects both. aex is the curve that has its slope proportional to x at all points. See the geometrical proof here (comes after the analytical proof) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity

This reminds me of the Englishman who was walking past a postman, with a big bunch of letters in his hand, looking over the gate at a viscously barking dog. "What's the problem" asks the Englishman, "Don't you know that barking dogs never bite?" The Scotsman replies, "Well aye, I know it and you know it, but does he know it?"

Well I think we not only can discuss them but we need to, have to. Nature is so tricky that our definitions have a track record of being 'leaky at the edges, into the grey areas'. So we must keep them under constant review (by discussion). The history of zero point energy is a prime case in point. The original quantum theory did not include it, which lead to theoretical difficulties.

I see that my earlier post was so poorly phrased as to be ambiguous. I was complimenting you on the number and consistency of past posts in multiple threads where I have seen you assert that energy is a property not a substance. But thank you for continuing the discussion. Good thoughtful question +1 1) Yes. No I don't think so. I haven't defined 'property', let alone energy. But think on this. Can a photon do (mechanical) work? Energy is the capacity to do work. One explanation of work is that it is the tally of the transfer of mechanical energy. Similarly one explanation of heat is that it is the tally of the transfer of heat energy. So already we have at least two forms or types of energy. Are work and heat themselves forms of energy or something else? Temperature is defined as a system property. Yet we can't take a 'boxful' of that temperature from something and transfer it to something else. But we canit seems, take a 'boxful' of the system property 'internal energy' from something and transfer it to something else, as heat and/or work. So what is that boxful a property of? And all that is without 'zero point energy' and the fact that we can't squeeze out the last drop of internal energy, Which brings us back to your photon questions where our best answers lie in quantum mechanics. AS I keep saying - It's Complicated!

Scott, I hope you realise this comment was not addressed at you, but at the OP, who keeps avoiding my question. How can something that is shapeless (as in the title of this thread) be constantly changing its shape?

Rayner does indeed accord with what you say quite often since you carefully avoid saying that heat is or is not a form of energy. You have taken the position that energy is a property in many responses to many threads. As to whether energy has substance or not I don't recall accepting a strict binary option. Which is the purpose of this thread. To explore the complexities. This is a discussion site after all.

Sensei, I think you have entirely missed the point. The point is that you can't reduce the mass of a Uranium atom because you no longer have a Uranium atom afterwards. But more than this. You can't avoid the behaviours bestowed upon something by its mass. That is you can't switch off or shield from its gravity. You can't dispense with its inertia. Imagine one of the particles I said were tootling along. They are electrically neutral atoms. But now suppose they are charged. Then they will also have PE in an electrostatic Field. But suppose further that I can switch on and off the Field. Then that Potential energy is not inherent in the particles, like the mass is. It is at the behest of an external agency, because I can switch it on and off. So how is this PE a property of the particle?

Total annihilation and removal of all mass as Strange said. But thanks for the intervening post as I can now bring in the other thread. If it's stuff show me something that is made up only of energy. Heat is a phenomenon. It represents energy transfer due to a temperature difference. It's not specified what that energy is a property of, since there are three modes of heat transfer. Plus, heat is a term that is sloppily used, perhaps the most sloppily used, in physics discussions. No I did not say it is 'stuff', which generally refers to matter and has mass. I said it was complicated. I note you are treading carefully with heat. Quite rightly. But here is an interesting quote from Rayner

Since this discussion is drawing the thread off topic I have started a new thread for the purpose of continuing it. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114895-the-nature-and-application-of-the-term-property-with-particular-reference-to-energy/?tab=comments#comment-1054447

Certain types. But not energy, as a category. There are now at least two current threads in which energy and other quantities are portrayed as 'properties' in somewhat off topic discussions. So the purpose of this thread is to draw these discussions together for proper consideration in one thread, without disrupting the originals. Swansont, yes you are correct we can't just add or remove any old type of 'energy' as this discussion is intended to show. Recognising that energy can be considered a 'category' goes a long way towards this. We can reduce the mass of something and release it as energy (fusion and fission, for example). We can even remove all the mass and convert it to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation). Well let's test this claim shall we? Suppose we have some particles of hydrogen and radium tootling along happily. Now suppose we cause the hydrogen to fuse. Voila we no longer have hydrogen! Similarly once the radium splits Voila we no longer have radium! So yes you have reduced mass, but that mass is a property of something else. Moral you can't remove some mass from something by fission or fusion. Your use of the word annihilation gives the final clue. Voila you do remove all the mass, but you also remove even the something else! My apologies to all about the presentation of this first post, but I can't get this stupid editor to do what I want, or even delete the parts I don't want.