wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Kinane wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"newedana" wrote in message
oups.com...


Now, assume the particle comes to rest, i.e., v = 0. How shall we
interpret E = mc^2? It's not an energy associated with speed and it's
not dependent on any model of the particle. We shall interpret it as a
latent energy. How latent energy is to be transformed into kinetic or
some other form of energy is separate question.

....

The real problem with E=Mc^2 is that this equation does not suggest
any
information concerning the nuclear activities producing the nuclear
energy in the atomic nuclear structures.

That's because it's not an equation dependent on a particular atomic
theory or model. Furthermore, it's been shown to apply rigorously at
the subatomic level.


Leaving aside Relativism, which I regard as adolescent philosophy - one
step
above infantilism (Absolutism- -Categoricalism) - and attempting to be
Effectuationist:

Re "E=mc^2": Let's start over; let's attempt to make our own formula.

Taking "E": Before quantification of something effects, the concept
effects - the identity emerges.

So, (perhaps somewhat the reverse of the equation) what is this energy -
which we want to address - which becomes packeted as mass?

Presumably, we talk of "latent energy" or, perhaps better, "the nuclear
activities producing the nuclear energy in the atomic nuclear
structures".
So, what do we have there?

Is your question rhetorical? If you really want me to tell you what
energy is, from what formal point of view shall I reply, given that you
have dissed the relativistic point of view?


I am interested in attempting to engage about this, as a matter of
exploration.

Effectuationist Principle:
"Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship 'of forces' -
'forces' indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted".

(This is rather analogous to a floor of people of a disco dance. Groups
begin to form. They (the groups) remain somewhat open - have some
interchange - so effectively are indefinite and dynamic. This group
emergence is reliant upon trial and error of potential FoR in the initial
comparative chaos - indeed, inferentially, many potential FoRs.
In any such emerging group - emerging through somewhat recurrence - the
frame of reference too remains somewhat open - variations of mood, for
example. Of course, inferentially, there are many frames of reference -
effectively each dancer, and with somewhat different inter-change with other
groups. So, effectively, the group is indefinite and dynamic and so too the
FoR-dancer, quite apart from inferentially. And so there is a range of
potential of the buzz which effects - again, even apart from the inferential
clause).

1. Dance to effect emerging concept of E (energy).
2. Emerging concept will be doubly indefinite and dynamic: somewhat open
tension of relationship 'of forces' and somewhat open emerging frame of
reference.

Concept E having fairly well crystallized, we can experiment with various
potential forms - to effect a buzz to our liking.

That can be either to define different masses or to explore potential masses
or to ...

Perhaps this premise has the potential to take our relationship with E into
new paradigms - though Rome was not built in a day. (If not, blame the DJ).

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com