Think about this, picturing yourself living in the year of 1905:

* Atoms are suspected by many, but unknown yet. For instance, Planck is not
an atomicist. Molecule is the most accepted concept by then.
* J.J. Thomson electron's has been present for only 8 years.
* Willy Wien has proposed for 5 years that the H ion is a fundamental particle
(proton), that along with electrons form the elementary H atom.
* The prevailing theory of the atom's structure was that atoms were mushy,
balls, with a massive positive charge with bits of negative charges strew
around them. This theory worked fine for most experiments.
* What is mass is remaining as a mystery. Lorentz had proposed, in 1904,
that mass of electron is ONLY of electromagnetic nature and that, for
electrons moving at very low speeds in respect to c (v/c << 1) is:

m = e²/(6πc²R)

* Unknowingly, Lorentz anticipated that E(rest) = mc² = e²/(6πR).

In this context of Lorentz relativity, Einstein comes OUT OF NOWHERE and
states the following:

- If you LOOK AT a body of mass m that is at rest in the origin (0,0,0) from
a reference frame that moves at constant speed v, THEN:

---- IF the body magically emits twin but opposite beams of light, with energy
L/2 each, THEN:

----------- You, the moving observer, notice that part of the MASS of the body at
----------- rest has TRANSMUTED into energy 2 x L/2 of the pair of light beams.
----------- To find such value, you do the DIRTY TRICK of subtracting the total
----------- energy that exist in EACH reference system.

------------------ You don't give a shit about that both systems do not form a
------------------ CLOSED, ISOLATED new system, because both light beams
------------------ move away, carrying energy L toward infinity. It perfectly could
------------------ be that such energy is "downloaded" 1,000 Km far away using
------------------ photodetectors and capacitors, to absorb such energy.

-------------------- You obtain a formula like ΔE = L (γ-1)

------------------------ As you are A CRETIN, you derive ΔE = 1/2 L/c² v² (v << c),
------------------------ and CLAIM that L/c² = Δm, mass lost by the object at rest.

In less than 10 years, the word that m = E/c² SPREAD LIKE WILDFIRE in the
realms of chemistry and physics, DISREGARDING THE FACT that it comes
from an arbitrary, circular derivation VALID ONLY for v << c.

NEVER, EVER such derivation could be extended for any value of v, not even
for v = 0.2 c. IT FAILS ALL THE TIME. Einstein tried SIX TIMES to derive it
correctly, until he GAVE UP in 1942 (with the 6th. attempt).

Now, contemplate what happened:

1) A STUPID, IRRATIONAL DERIVATION made by a protected imbecile that
was playing with matches, like a kid, just with kinematics and light, is
ADOPTED as an ABSOLUTE TRUTH extracted BY FORCE from the coffin
of secrets OF NATURE. E = mc² is a revolution, even when suspected for
centuries (or desired).

2) It will be rapidly accepted in CHEMISTRY, in the nascent QUANTUM
PHYSICS, in ASTROPHYSICS and, later, in the new NUCLEAR PHYSICS.

3) The state of chemistry by 1915 was rather LAME and INCONSISTENT.
Rutherford and his chemist partner did the dirty job of providing chemistry
with a mathematical framework, allowing it to GRADUATE as a science.

The original standard of atomic weight, established in the 19th century, was hydrogen, with a value of 1 (Dalton and Thomson). All other elements had an
assigned atomic weight referenced to the one of hydrogen. It only changed
in 1961, when the unit of atomic mass was defined as 1/16 the mass of an
oxygen atom.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atomic-weightsan-historical-sketch/

Different terms like atomic weight, atomic mass (unit: 1 Dalton), mass
number, relative atomic mass, etc., makes the overall scenario in chemistry
a bit confusing.

********************************
Similar terms for different quantities ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass

The atomic mass or relative isotopic mass are sometimes confused, or incorrectly used, as synonyms of relative atomic mass (also known as atomic weight) or the standard atomic weight (a particular variety of atomic weight, in the sense that it is standardized). However, as noted in the introduction, atomic mass is an absolute mass while all other terms are dimensionless. Relative atomic mass and standard atomic weight represent terms for (abundance-weighted) averages of relative atomic masses in elemental samples, not for single nuclides. As such, relative atomic mass and standard atomic weight often differ numerically from the relative isotopic mass.
********************************

* Atomic number: For ordinary nuclei, this is equal to the number of protons
found in the nucleus of every atom of that element. It uniquely identifies
ordinary chemical elements.

* Atomic mass: The mass of an atom, defined in Dalton units (1/12 of C12).

* Mass number: Or Atomic Mass Number, is the number of protons and
neutron in a nucleus of ordinary chemical elements.

* Atomic weight: (Deprecated) is now denominated Relative Atomic Mass. Is
dimensionless, and is the ratio of average mass of atoms to the atomic
mass constant (1/12 of the mass of C12 atom).

The ratio of atomic masses to mass number deviates from 1 (for H atom).
The deviation starts positive at hydrogen-1, then decreases until it reaches a minimum at helium-4. At carbon, the ratio of mass (in daltons) to mass number is defined as 1, and after carbon it becomes less than one until a minimum is reached at iron-56 (with only slightly higher values for iron-58 and nickel-62), then increases to positive values in the heavy isotopes, with increasing atomic number.

All these RELATIVE DIFFERENCES that started using H atoms as absolute
reference value were MANIPULATED to accommodate differences in the
masses of protons and neutrons that, combined, form different nucleus.

Giving c the value of "1", chemistry and physics realms worked together in a
RENORMALIZATION of atomic masses, so MASS DIFFERENCES between
atoms (working with ions) could FIT the carefully designed tables for the
above listed denominations used in chemistry and nuclear physics, so that
E = mc² could SOLVE the mysteries in the quantum world for everybody..

Such normalization took place between 1911 and 1930, with further
refinements until 1962.

It's COLLUSION all over to promote relativity and the new physics, which
started by using Einstein as a fucking trojan horse.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> In this context of Lorentz relativity, Einstein comes OUT OF NOWHERE and states the following:
>
> - If you LOOK AT a body of mass m that is at rest in the origin (0,0,0) from a reference frame that moves at constant speed v, THEN:
>
> ---- IF the body magically emits twin but opposite beams of light, with energy L/2 each, THEN:
>
> ----------- You, the moving observer, notice that part of the MASS of the body at rest has TRANSMUTED into energy 2 x L/2
> ----------- of the pair of light beams.
> ----------- To find such value, you do the DIRTY TRICK of subtracting the total energy that exist in EACH reference system.
>
> ------------------ You don't give a shit about that both systems do not form a CLOSED, ISOLATED new system, because both light beams
> ------------------ move away, carrying energy L toward infinity. It perfectly could be that such energy is "downloaded" 1,000 Km far away using
> ------------------ photodetectors and capacitors, to absorb such energy.
>
> -------------------- You obtain a formula like ΔE = L (γ-1)
>
> ------------------------ As you are A CRETIN, you derive ΔE = 1/2 L/c² v² (v << c), and CLAIM that L/c² = Δm, mass lost by the object at rest.
<snip>

MORE CRETINISM DERIVED IN THE NEXT YEARS:

1) L/c² = Δm is further accepted as a generalization E/c² = m₀, the energy of the mass m₀ OF WHATEVER AT REST. It can be a piece
of wood, a glass of beer, a sheet of paper, any particle, atom or molecule, a planet, a galaxy, .....

DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND FROM WHICH HACKED THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THIS CAME, AND HOW IT WAS ABSURDLY
GENERALIZED FOR EVERYTHING?

2) ΔE = L (γ-1) is further APPLIED TO EVERYTHING, under the form K.E. = m₀c² (γ - 1), which came to be the kinetic energy of any
piece of matter with rest mass m₀, that is moving to ANY ARBITRARY SPEED v. And particle physicists made a living with this.

But particle physicists only can use CHARGED PARTICLES. No spaceships, no sheets of paper, no twins. And even more, NO CONSTANT
SPEED. Violating any rational coherence of though, and SHAMELESSLY, the fucking equation is used for charged particles under
CONSTANT ACCELERATION (goodbye SR). Its real expression should be

KE(t) = m₀c² [γ(t) - 1]

3) For the next 117 years, the expression has been telling that MASS INCREASES WITH SPEED. And still, 20% of physicists still
believe this shit.

m(t) = m₀ γ(t) = m₀/√[1 - v(t)²/c²]

which has NO SENSE, and no comprehensible meaning, as what mass is STILL REMAINS UNKNOWN.

4) The above led to a generalization E = mc², labeled as the most important equation in physics. More than E = h.f, F = m.a, I = V/R, etc..
And such cretinism is considered valid for any speed, from v = 0 to v ≈ c (but always v < c).

This deceiving equation has different interpretations:

E = mc²
E₀ = m₀c² , which led to RENORMALIZATION of atomic mass, atomic weight, etc., in chemistry and also in physics.
E = γ m₀c² , which led to interpretations about increasing mass of particles.
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² , which led to open interpretations of photons as particles - Planck.
But IT FAILS, when considering the TOTAL ENERGY AT REST of charged particles, dismissing Coulomb, Lorentz, etc.

E₀ₑ ≠ m₀ₑc² + e²/(4πε₀Rₑ) ; DISMISSED, BURIED, FORGOTTEN.

E₀ₑ = m₀ₑc² ; CONVENIENT REPLACEMENT BY COLLUSION, to make relativity great at the expense of truth.

That's why physics/hard sciences ARE ROTTEN, BROKEN. Physics is DEAD by design since early XX century.

Engineering, which don't give a shit about this, CREATED THE MODERN WORLD. Modern physics STINKS and is, mostly, FALSE.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:44:21 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Its real expression should be
>
> KE(t) = m₀c² [γ(t) - 1]
>

Dumbestfuck,

It is not. But you have no clue how it is calculated. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:44:21 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > In this context of Lorentz relativity, Einstein comes OUT OF NOWHERE and states the following:
> >
> > - If you LOOK AT a body of mass m that is at rest in the origin (0,0,0) from a reference frame that moves at constant speed v, THEN:
> >
> > ---- IF the body magically emits twin but opposite beams of light, with energy L/2 each, THEN:
> >
> > ----------- You, the moving observer, notice that part of the MASS of the body at rest has TRANSMUTED into energy 2 x L/2
> > ----------- of the pair of light beams.
> > ----------- To find such value, you do the DIRTY TRICK of subtracting the total energy that exist in EACH reference system.
> >
> > ------------------ You don't give a shit about that both systems do not form a CLOSED, ISOLATED new system, because both light beams
> > ------------------ move away, carrying energy L toward infinity. It perfectly could be that such energy is "downloaded" 1,000 Km far away using
> > ------------------ photodetectors and capacitors, to absorb such energy..
> >
> > -------------------- You obtain a formula like ΔE = L (γ-1)
> >
> > ------------------------ As you are A CRETIN, you derive ΔE = 1/2 L/c² v² (v << c), and CLAIM that L/c² = Δm, mass lost by the object at rest.
>
> <snip>
>
> MORE CRETINISM DERIVED IN THE NEXT YEARS:
>
> 1) L/c² = Δm is further accepted as a generalization E/c² = m₀, the energy of the mass m₀ OF WHATEVER AT REST. It can be a piece
> of wood, a glass of beer, a sheet of paper, any particle, atom or molecule, a planet, a galaxy, .....
>
> DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND FROM WHICH HACKED THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THIS CAME, AND HOW IT WAS ABSURDLY
> GENERALIZED FOR EVERYTHING?
>
> 2) ΔE = L (γ-1) is further APPLIED TO EVERYTHING, under the form K.E. = m₀c² (γ - 1), which came to be the kinetic energy of any
> piece of matter with rest mass m₀, that is moving to ANY ARBITRARY SPEED v. And particle physicists made a living with this.
>
> But particle physicists only can use CHARGED PARTICLES. No spaceships, no sheets of paper, no twins. And even more, NO CONSTANT
> SPEED. Violating any rational coherence of though, and SHAMELESSLY, the fucking equation is used for charged particles under
> CONSTANT ACCELERATION (goodbye SR). Its real expression should be
>
> KE(t) = m₀c² [γ(t) - 1]
>
> 3) For the next 117 years, the expression has been telling that MASS INCREASES WITH SPEED. And still, 20% of physicists still
> believe this shit.
>
> m(t) = m₀ γ(t) = m₀/√[1 - v(t)²/c²]
>
> which has NO SENSE, and no comprehensible meaning, as what mass is STILL REMAINS UNKNOWN.
>
> 4) The above led to a generalization E = mc², labeled as the most important equation in physics. More than E = h.f, F = m.a, I = V/R, etc.
> And such cretinism is considered valid for any speed, from v = 0 to v ≈ c (but always v < c).
>
> This deceiving equation has different interpretations:
>
> E = mc²
> E₀ = m₀c² , which led to RENORMALIZATION of atomic mass, atomic weight, etc., in chemistry and also in physics.
> E = γ m₀c² , which led to interpretations about increasing mass of particles.
> E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² , which led to open interpretations of photons as particles - Planck.
>
> But IT FAILS, when considering the TOTAL ENERGY AT REST of charged particles, dismissing Coulomb, Lorentz, etc.
>
> E₀ₑ ≠ m₀ₑc² + e²/(4πε₀Rₑ) ; DISMISSED, BURIED, FORGOTTEN.
>
> E₀ₑ = m₀ₑc² ; CONVENIENT REPLACEMENT BY COLLUSION, to make relativity great at the expense of truth.
>
> That's why physics/hard sciences ARE ROTTEN, BROKEN. Physics is DEAD by design since early XX century.
>
> Engineering, which don't give a shit about this, CREATED THE MODERN WORLD.. Modern physics STINKS and is, mostly, FALSE.

Hopelessly naive. Pretty much 100% incorrect.

--
Jan

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:46:25 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:44:21 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > In this context of Lorentz relativity, Einstein comes OUT OF NOWHERE and states the following:
> > >
> > > - If you LOOK AT a body of mass m that is at rest in the origin (0,0,0) from a reference frame that moves at constant speed v, THEN:
> > >
> > > ---- IF the body magically emits twin but opposite beams of light, with energy L/2 each, THEN:
> > >
> > > ----------- You, the moving observer, notice that part of the MASS of the body at rest has TRANSMUTED into energy 2 x L/2
> > > ----------- of the pair of light beams.
> > > ----------- To find such value, you do the DIRTY TRICK of subtracting the total energy that exist in EACH reference system.
> > >
> > > ------------------ You don't give a shit about that both systems do not form a CLOSED, ISOLATED new system, because both light beams
> > > ------------------ move away, carrying energy L toward infinity. It perfectly could be that such energy is "downloaded" 1,000 Km far away using
> > > ------------------ photodetectors and capacitors, to absorb such energy.
> > >
> > > -------------------- You obtain a formula like ΔE = L (γ-1)
> > >
> > > ------------------------ As you are A CRETIN, you derive ΔE = 1/2 L/c² v² (v << c), and CLAIM that L/c² = Δm, mass lost by the object at rest.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > MORE CRETINISM DERIVED IN THE NEXT YEARS:
> >
> > 1) L/c² = Δm is further accepted as a generalization E/c² = m₀, the energy of the mass m₀ OF WHATEVER AT REST. It can be a piece
> > of wood, a glass of beer, a sheet of paper, any particle, atom or molecule, a planet, a galaxy, .....
> >
> > DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND FROM WHICH HACKED THOUGHT EXPERIMENT THIS CAME, AND HOW IT WAS ABSURDLY
> > GENERALIZED FOR EVERYTHING?
> >
> > 2) ΔE = L (γ-1) is further APPLIED TO EVERYTHING, under the form K.E. = m₀c² (γ - 1), which came to be the kinetic energy of any
> > piece of matter with rest mass m₀, that is moving to ANY ARBITRARY SPEED v. And particle physicists made a living with this.
> >
> > But particle physicists only can use CHARGED PARTICLES. No spaceships, no sheets of paper, no twins. And even more, NO CONSTANT
> > SPEED. Violating any rational coherence of though, and SHAMELESSLY, the fucking equation is used for charged particles under
> > CONSTANT ACCELERATION (goodbye SR). Its real expression should be
> >
> > KE(t) = m₀c² [γ(t) - 1]
> >
> > 3) For the next 117 years, the expression has been telling that MASS INCREASES WITH SPEED. And still, 20% of physicists still
> > believe this shit.
> >
> > m(t) = m₀ γ(t) = m₀/√[1 - v(t)²/c²]
> >
> > which has NO SENSE, and no comprehensible meaning, as what mass is STILL REMAINS UNKNOWN.
> >
> > 4) The above led to a generalization E = mc², labeled as the most important equation in physics. More than E = h.f, F = m.a, I = V/R, etc.
> > And such cretinism is considered valid for any speed, from v = 0 to v ≈ c (but always v < c).
> >
> > This deceiving equation has different interpretations:
> >
> > E = mc²
> > E₀ = m₀c² , which led to RENORMALIZATION of atomic mass, atomic weight, etc., in chemistry and also in physics.
> > E = γ m₀c² , which led to interpretations about increasing mass of particles.
> > E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² , which led to open interpretations of photons as particles - Planck.
> >
> > But IT FAILS, when considering the TOTAL ENERGY AT REST of charged particles, dismissing Coulomb, Lorentz, etc.
> >
> > E₀ₑ ≠ m₀ₑc² + e²/(4πε₀Rₑ) ; DISMISSED, BURIED, FORGOTTEN.
> >
> > E₀ₑ = m₀ₑc² ; CONVENIENT REPLACEMENT BY COLLUSION, to make relativity great at the expense of truth.
> >
> > That's why physics/hard sciences ARE ROTTEN, BROKEN. Physics is DEAD by design since early XX century.
> >
> > Engineering, which don't give a shit about this, CREATED THE MODERN WORLD. Modern physics STINKS and is, mostly, FALSE.
> Hopelessly naive. Pretty much 100% incorrect.
>
> --
> Jan

What happens to Higgs where it donates complete to every particle?
Does it not go empty itself?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> Think about this, picturing yourself living in the year of 1905:

FYI, nowadays the relation cannot be false
because the kilogram -is defined- in terms of it.
(by giving c and h defined values)

E = m c^2 is nothing but a conversion between units nowadays,
as indubitably true as there are 3.6 MJ to the kilowatthour.

Yes, I know you are incapable of understanding this,
but I repeat it for the benefit of innocent kiddies
who might stray in here, and who shouldn't be allowed
to be misled by you,

Jan

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 9:27:06 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Think about this, picturing yourself living in the year of 1905:
> FYI, nowadays the relation cannot be false
> because the kilogram -is defined- in terms of it.
> (by giving c and h defined values)
>
> E = m c^2 is nothing but a conversion between units nowadays,
> as indubitably true as there are 3.6 MJ to the kilowatthour.
>
> Yes, I know you are incapable of understanding this,
> but I repeat it for the benefit of innocent kiddies
> who might stray in here, and who shouldn't be allowed
> to be misled by you,
>
> Jan

YOU GET THIS, FOR ONCE:

The relationship E=mc2 REMAINS UNPROVED, even theoretically, for any value of v that makes Gamma impossible to dismiss.

Einstein FAILED SIX TIMES, between 1905 and 1942, to PROVE IT.

E=mc2 IS A CONVENTION ACCEPTED AND IMPOSED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY), as well as
the value of "c" was ACCEPTED AS A FIX, and imposed BY CONVENTION.

The shit above makes thing easier for the fucking lazy bastards that work in science, NOT TRUE BUT EASIER TO USE.

And, regarding NORMALIZATION AND COLLUSION, check Feynman & Co. renormalization in QED ("but it works" is not enough).

Hypocritical and IGNORANT cretin.

Le 04/01/2023 à 14:03, Richard Hertz a écrit :

> The relationship E=mc2 REMAINS UNPROVED, even theoretically, for any value of v
> that makes Gamma impossible to dismiss.

I think it takes part of the idea that the energy of a particle is equal
to its mass times the square of its (actual) velocity.

We can then set E=mVr².

Energy passing through space.

Simply, we must not forget that moving in the space defined as reference,
a particle (or an object) also moves when the time.

From where E=mc² (energy of passage in time).

The two energies not being linearly additive, the sum of the two is a
Pythagoreanism.

Eg=sqrt[(mc²)²+(mVr²)²]

We simplify:
Eg(global)=sqrt[(mc²)²(1+Vr²/c²)]

Eg=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

Either, since Vr=v/sqrt((1-v²/c²)

Eg=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

R.H.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 9:27:06 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Think about this, picturing yourself living in the year of 1905:
> > FYI, nowadays the relation cannot be false
> > because the kilogram -is defined- in terms of it.
> > (by giving c and h defined values)
> >
> > E = m c^2 is nothing but a conversion between units nowadays,
> > as indubitably true as there are 3.6 MJ to the kilowatthour.
> >
> > Yes, I know you are incapable of understanding this,
> > but I repeat it for the benefit of innocent kiddies
> > who might stray in here, and who shouldn't be allowed
> > to be misled by you,
> >
> > Jan
>
> YOU GET THIS, FOR ONCE:
>
> The relationship E=mc2 REMAINS UNPROVED,
[snip abuse]

There is nothing to prove.
It is true by the definitions of the SI.
(in particular of the kilogram)
If you want to find problems,
you must find them elsewhere.

This is no doubt too hard a task for you.
You were already incapable of understanding
how and why c can be given a defined value,

Jan

On Thursday, 5 January 2023 at 11:15:22 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 9:27:06 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Think about this, picturing yourself living in the year of 1905:
> > > FYI, nowadays the relation cannot be false
> > > because the kilogram -is defined- in terms of it.
> > > (by giving c and h defined values)
> > >
> > > E = m c^2 is nothing but a conversion between units nowadays,
> > > as indubitably true as there are 3.6 MJ to the kilowatthour.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know you are incapable of understanding this,
> > > but I repeat it for the benefit of innocent kiddies
> > > who might stray in here, and who shouldn't be allowed
> > > to be misled by you,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > YOU GET THIS, FOR ONCE:
> >
> > The relationship E=mc2 REMAINS UNPROVED,
> [snip abuse]
>
> There is nothing to prove.
> It is true by the definitions of the SI.

Tell me, poor idiot, if I defined a shark as a
grass eating four leg animal - would it
be enough to make the claim "sharks eat
grass" true?
Besides, of course, you're mistaken,
you can't derive this formula from SI
definitions. Having no clue about any
logic you don't know.