As what I developed, based on a possible extension of the last part of Einstein's paper on Electrodynamics that allowed him to write his following paper on mass-energy, offended Dono badly, I think it's worth a reposting here as a separate OP.

I thanks Thomas Heger for the inspiration, even when I finished being
wrong on my initial position, and he was right.

By the way, Thomas, I find that's weird that the energy of the electrostatic
field of the electron wasn't considered in the formula E=mc², even when
it exists as a separate source besides its mass.

I have this interesting link:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_percentage_of_an_electrons_energy_is_in_its_electric_field

"where the energy of an electron field is given by using the fine structure constant, giving a value of 1.2 . 10^-10 J with a radius of 10^-18 m. The energy in an electron’s electric field would be about 1400 times more energy than an electron’s annihilation energy". (quoted from the OP).

Eext = αħc/2r = e²/(4π.ε.ħc) . ħc/2r = e²/(8π.ε.r)

Copy of my post (without any post-edition) in
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1Trx60OjSPU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 6:50:53 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> > But it's interesting how come critics from physicists of that epoch vanished too. Here is a relationship between
> > Einstein's source for the E=mc² paper with Poincaré previous works, along with interesting observations about others:
> The equation appears in a 'hidden' form in the 1905 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' in the middle of page 22 of the last
> chapter ten.
>
> There he discussed:
>
> "...the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron..."
>
> the equation was: W=m*c² * some factors
>
> Because that W means actually energy, we could see this as an early version of E=mc².

I don't think that's a possible earlier version of E=mc². I have several reasons:

1) As I wrote in the OP of this thread, Einstein plagiarized ideas and mass concepts from Lorentz 1904, about the MASS INCREASE of slowly accelerated electrons (transverse and longitudinal). Observe the words in capital letters, because this is A SECOND STEAL of Einstein on Lorentz: RELATIVISTIC MASS INCREASE.

The error that the idiot made was corrected by Planck in 1906 (literature name it as "a minor mistake").

This important fact about Lorentz's relativistic mass increase (within his aether based relativity) has been IGNORED by the scientific media, that controls what physicists can or can not publish, is very telling as a 2nd. fundamental idea in SR.

As was written by Lorentz in his 1904 paper (in modern notation):

Me = e²/(6πc²R) , as the rest mass (v = 0)

MLong = MTran = Me = e²/(6πc²R) , for small ratio v/c < 0.1
MLong = Me . d(γ .v)/dv , called m1 by Lorentz and for any value of v < c.
MTran = Me . γ , called m2 by Lorentz and for any value of v < c.

In that epoch, the mgs system was used, and the magnitudes were:

for charge of e: g^1/2.cm^3/2.s^-1 units of measure
for the value of c: cm/s units of measure
for value of R: cm unit of measure

So, the Lorentz formula for Me is in grams units of measure.

It didn't took very long for physicists at that epoch to discard the nonsense of longitudinal and transverse mass and adopt a more general concept of mass (burying the concept of deformation of an sphere under uniform motion, along xyz axis).

But, the Lorentz's concept of mass increase under inertial motion stuck since then (Lorentz, 1904) and, under modern acceptation (starting with Gilbert Lewis and Richard Tolman (1908, 1909) by defining mass as the ratio of momentum to velocity, due to Lorentz ideas, clearly stated in his 1904 paper):

M = γ . Mo (Mo is mass at rest. Originated in Lorentz work since 1894).

2) It doesn't take too much to derive properties from Lorentz longitudinal mass expression (in modern terms):

m1 = Me . d(γ .v)/dv = γ³ . Me , generalizating for any mass with Mo value at rest, it is

M = γ³ . Mo

and its momentum at any inertial velocity v is:

P = M . v = γ³ . Mo . v

then, as it is on the same page of Einstein paper (longitudinal and transverse mass), the energy W involved in the work done to SLOWLY accelerate an electron from 0 to v is given by Einstein's formula:

W = ∫ γ³ . Mo . v . dv = Mo . ∫ γ³ .. v . dv = Mo . c² . (γ - 1)

or, adapted to modern terms:

E = Eo . (γ - 1), being Eo = Mo . c²

This formula, a lame derivation from Lorentz's work, didn't possessed any practical value for the purpose of Einstein to plagiarize and do reverse math on the 1904 Hasenhorl's paper with his E = 4/3 . Mo . c², nor for 1900 Poincaré's paper paper "The Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction", where he develop an expression Mr=S/c² based on Maxwell's radiation pressure and Lorentz theory.

But he took the concept of recoil from Poincaré and the concepts of mass increase on closed cavities and also his truncation of the expression of γ for low velocities than of the light.

γ ≈ 1 - ½ . v²/c²

which, being used in W = Mo . c² . (γ - 1) gave:

E ≈ - ½ . Eo. v²/c² = - ½ . (Eo/c²) . v²

There, probably, is when he tought "The Lord is laughing at me". If I just could get rid of the minus sign in a given scenario, then I could use THIS EQUATION to demonstrate that the NEGATIVE energy (so much alike as the K.E. formula) is DUE TO a loss of mass in a point-like mass, that radiates as light energy, then my year would be complete (1905).

3) And with these very simple (and stolen) concepts, he went further with his next 1905 paper, for which he needed:

3.1) Stupid believers on his written shit, and
3.2) Device an scenario (full of fallacies and circular reasoning) at where he could get rid of the - sign.
3.3) State that the result (obtained by DIFFERENCES IN TWO REFERENCE FRAMES) was due to an unproven (even today) conversion of a bit of mass in one frame as energy calculated by differences in energies BEFORE and AFTER two symmetrically opposed beams of light, with energy L/2 for each one.

And he did so in his next paper. But he couldn't prove it for the next 40 years and seven attempts, until he gave up.

If you read carefully that 1905 paper and follow his childish elementary algebra and reasoning, you'll find plenty of fallacies and circular reasoning (petitio principii) like when, at the very beginning, he assume a loss of mass in the point-like mass at the origin of the resting frame, but he DIDN'T PROVE IT!

Much horrendous yet is how (instead of Hasenhorl's closed system) he, without shame, perform subtractions in an open system, with infinite boundaries, which contain two different reference frames. And did that without shame.

And then, by convenience, and very slowly, he was adopted as the poster child for part of the physics community (and later the press, which was encouraged by friends of him. You call them now as PR people).

This is a re-post of a old one of mine, from this thread originated by Sylvia Else, two years ago:

Why E=mc² is wrong
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/bBhcSfznBB0/m/CsOncDEKAgAJ

In this post I tried to show that the 3 pages paper, which uses elementary math, has false conclusions, only
is valid for low values of v/c (an approximation of γ on its first two terms of its series expansion), is full of fallacies
and circular reasoning, and Einstein invested his next 40 years (six attempts) to make it right without success.

Yet, the formula E=mc² has been adopted by consensus on its application for energy at rest, in the same way that
c = 299792458 m/s has conveniently FIXED as a standard value (in vacuum). Eo=mo.c² brought a convenient conversion
between mass and energy (at rest), making the life of scientists happier (physicists, chemists, bio and molecular sciences, etc.)

Now the post where I tried to dissect the three pages, analyzing the problems with math, relativity and fallacies. I edited it
a bit to facilitate comprehension, but I didn't altered any fundamental content:

****************************** FULL QUOTE, WITH EDITION *********************************************************

I'm not discussing the validity of Einstein's paper on SR.

I'm specifically discussing that his derivation for E=mc² is FALSE and based on fallacies, as his next FIVE PUBLIC ATTEMPTS to correct the paper in the next 40 years were a failure.

There is NO THEORETICAL PROOF that support the validity of E=mc² as DEVELOPED by Einstein, and no other attempt other than his failed ones to prove it.

E=mc² was just ACCEPTED by the physics community, because it's the base of further developments at physics (de Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, Feynnman, etc.). It didn't play any rol in the development of nuclear physics, but it proved to be very convenient for the branch of particle's physics.

Here follows MY PROVE that 1905 Einstein's derivation is FALSE. It's very detailed and require to have a copy of the english translation at hand, to perform fact-cheks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I addressed the topic around E=mc² in several threads, particularly on this one:

“So, we are clear now? Einstein never proved E=mc² is due to loss of mass.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/eoxLarQJFyg%5B76-100%5D

In that thread, months ago, I analyzed step by step how the Sept. 1905 paper fail to prove the link between the ALLEGED loss of mass in the object located at the origin with the transformation of such a small loss (L/c²) into electromagnetic energy L (visible light in this case).

The paper “DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?” (By A. EINSTEIN. September 27, 1905) is very simple and also very short (2 ½ pages), with initial references to his prior paper (June 30, 1905) : “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES”.

I’ll prove here, AGAIN, that the approximation developed by Einstein to obtain (L/c²) is FALLACIOUS and mathematically INVALID, and that the extension of this approximation to a wide range of velocities “v”, lower than “c” makes the extrapolation of such result to the entire mass of the body located at the origin is FALSE, and so is any further attempt to use this failed attempt as a general expression E=mc², with disregard of the range of the velocity “v”.

The paper was almost immediately criticized by Planck (1906) as a wrong approximation, based on a circular reference introduced almost at the beginning (petition principii fallacy), because it introduced early on what was being to be proved. Even this interpretation by Planck is incorrect, because even when the main fallacy is there, hidden at plain sight, there IS NOT any physical connection between the energy L of the pair of light’s beams and ANY PROVEN DECREASE in the mass Mo of the object, as narrated by Einstein.

Einstein tried, publicly, six more times in the next 40 years, failing each time, until he dropped the subject by 1945. By then, the equation E=mc² was being pushed very far into the body of knowledge of relativistic physics, and ACCEPTED without discussions even for velocities “v” almost close to “c”.

It was late, by then, to reverse the tide of indoctrination that permeated physics at every statement. That such aberration could be published at Annalen der Physik required complicity, particularly from Wien (Chief Editor) and Planck (Chief Consultant on Theoretical Physics, representing the German Association of Physicists).

--- ANALYSIS OF THE 1905 PAPER (it requires having a copy at hand) -----

FIRST, I QUOTE EINSTEIN’S PARAGRAPHS:

“Let there be a stationary body in the system (x, y, z), and let its energy—referred to the system (x, y, z) be E0. Let the energy of the body relative to the system (x’,y’,z’) moving as above with the velocity v, be H0.

Let this body send out, in a direction making an angle φwith the axis of x, plane waves of light, of energy ½ L measured relatively to (x, y, z), and simultaneously an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction. Meanwhile the body remains at rest with respect to the system (x, y, z)..

The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission of light E1 or H1 respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (x’,y’,z’) respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain…………..”

I STOP HERE THE LITERAL COPY&PASTE (except for the use of (x’,y’,z’)).

I introduce some simplifications (not violating any premises from the quoted paragraphs:

1) As it’s valid for any angle φ, I select φ=0, which makes cos φ=1. Now the beams of light are parallel to the horizontal axis. I LET IT GO that Einstein wrote, before the quoted text:

“Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the system of co-ordinates (x, y, z), possess the energy l”.

This is utterly incorrect, as it would require that the semi-spherical beams of light be measured very far away from the source. But this is a minor license that can be tolerated, given the gross developments that follow.

2) I introduce the HIDDEN MASS Mo of the stationary object that resides at the system (x, y, z), which has been mentioned only once at the beginning of the paper, but without giving it an expression Mo.

3) Einstein introduces the terms E and H to express the ENERGY of the body (Mo, even when he purposely omit it), being that E is the energy of Mo observed from the RESTING frame (x, y, z), and H as the energy of Mo observed from the MOVING frame (x’,y’,z’), in such a way that:

E0:Energy of the body with mass Mo BEFORE the emission of light, from (x,y,z).
E1: Energy of the body Mo AFTER the emission of light, from (x,y,z).
H0: Energy of the body Mo BEFORE the emission of light, from (x',y’,z’).
H1: Energy of the body Mo AFTER the emission of light, measured from (x’,y’,z’).

4) I’ll be using the letter γ to represent the Gamma Factor.

Now, I write what Einstein expressed after the quote ending in “we obtain..” as:

Eo = E1 + ½ L + ½ L
Ho = H1 + ½ L.Y + ½ L. γ
= H1 + γ . L

By subtraction we obtain from these equations

Ho – Eo - (H1 - E1) = L ( γ – 1)

The equations from above are LITERAL equations written by Einstein (using φ = 0 and γ as Gamma).

The FALLACY (circular reference criticized by Planck) is in the very first equation. Einstein INTRODUCES his “petitio principii” fallacy by STATING that the body Mo already has the energy embedded into its mass, as it results if I read the equation as E1 = Eo – L.

So, in this in dishonest, deceptive way, he introduces what he wants to prove: that L was WITHIN Mo before the light was turned on.

Einstein continues with his manipulation of the difference of energy between TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, as if they formed a CLOSED system, which is not because light beams travel toward infinity. It’s a very different approach than that of 1904 Hasenhorl, where he used a CLOSED SYSTEM (a cavity with planckian caps).

Then, he subtract the energy from two different systems, one in motion, and express:

Ho – Eo = Ko + C
H1 – E1 = K1 + C

and assert: “since C does not change during the emission of light. So we have”

Ko – K1 = L ( γ – 1)

Now, decomposing Y into a series and discarding high power terms, by asserting that v << c, he gets:

Ko – K1 = ½ (L/c²) . v²

Quoting:

“From this equation it directly follows that:—
If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its MASS DIMINISHES by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that

The mass of a body IS A MEASURE OF ITS ENERGY-CONTENT; if the energy changes by L, the MASS CHANGES in the same sense by L/9×10^20, the energy being measured in ergs, and the MASS in grammes.”

And this is the conclusion of his paper, which is FALSE by several reasons:

1) FALSE: He introduces a value Eo for energy at (x,y,z) before the light is turned ON. This is FALSE, as the body with mass Mo is at REST on his reference frame, so Eo = 0.

2) FALSE: He introduces (his main fallacy) what he wants to prove: That Mo = Mo’+ dM, where dM will be transformed into energy L when the light is turned ON. He, in a slicky way, never mention Mo, and writes E1 = Eo + L, with an innocent attitude at the beginning. The correct expression is E1 = L, as Eo = 0, which is FALSE, as he doesn’t explain from where L is provided.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:01:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip waste of memory footprint and waste of network bandwidth>
> E =mc² has been settled as an absolute and unquestionable truth (valid anywhere in the universe) in the same way
> that c = c = 299792458 m/s has been settled at any Bureau of Standards.
>
> Rabid kapo
E =mc² is verified on a daily basis by the functionality of nuclear centrals all over the world. You are eating shit. Again.

<snip>

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 2:42:18 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:01:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > snip waste of memory footprint and waste of network bandwidth>
> > E =mc² has been settled as an absolute and unquestionable truth (valid anywhere in the universe) in the same way
> > that c = c = 299792458 m/s has been settled at any Bureau of Standards.
> >
> > Rabid kapo
> E =mc² is verified on a daily basis by the functionality of nuclear centrals all over the world. You are eating shit. Again.

Axioms, retarded cretin, axioms! Science can't live without them, when the paths of reason are circular.

I quote this definition of Axiom: "The word 'Axiom' is derived from the Greek word 'Axioma' meaning 'TRUE WHITHOUT NEEDING
A PROOF'. A mathematical statement which we assume to be true without a proof is called an axiom. Therefore, they are statements
that are STANDALONE and INDISPUTABLE in their origins."

Axiom about the point: It exists, and that's it. And with it you have "point-like" masses, BBT singularity, the entire building of relativity,
the proof of Mercury's perihelion under GR (Schwarzschild), the creation and development of calculus, the value of c, etc.
See how does it work? And also, E =mc² is a FUCKING AXIOM, and the rest of physics is built upon it.

What would be of relativity without their "point-like ghost observers"?
Why a "point-like photon" is so successful? Ask Bodkin, he will elaborate (zero duration, yet exists with hf energy).
Why quantum physics fail with such axiom, giving infinities? It doesn't matter. Create another axiom and call it "renormalization".

Cretin, utter ignorant beyond belief. And you claim that went to college and got a degree? Is it an axiom, so they could get rid of you?

On 8/21/2021 2:11 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
>
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 2:42:18 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:01:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> snip waste of memory footprint and waste of network bandwidth>
>>> E =mc² has been settled as an absolute and unquestionable truth (valid anywhere in the universe) in the same way
>>> that c = c = 299792458 m/s has been settled at any Bureau of Standards.
>>>
>>> Rabid kapo
>> E =mc² is verified on a daily basis by the functionality of nuclear centrals all over the world. You are eating shit. Again.
>
> Axioms, retarded cretin, axioms! Science can't live without them, when the paths of reason are circular.
>
> I quote this definition of Axiom: "The word 'Axiom' is derived from the Greek word 'Axioma' meaning 'TRUE WHITHOUT NEEDING
> A PROOF'. A mathematical statement which we assume to be true without a proof is called an axiom. Therefore, they are statements
> that are STANDALONE and INDISPUTABLE in their origins."
>
> Axiom about the point: It exists, and that's it. And with it you have "point-like" masses, BBT singularity, the entire building of relativity,
> the proof of Mercury's perihelion under GR (Schwarzschild), the creation and development of calculus, the value of c, etc.
> See how does it work? And also, E =mc² is a FUCKING AXIOM, and the rest of physics is built upon it.
>
> What would be of relativity without their "point-like ghost observers"?
> Why a "point-like photon" is so successful? Ask Bodkin, he will elaborate (zero duration, yet exists with hf energy).
> Why quantum physics fail with such axiom, giving infinities? It doesn't matter. Create another axiom and call it "renormalization".
>
> Cretin, utter ignorant beyond belief. And you claim that went to college and got a degree? Is it an axiom, so they could get rid of you?
>
Idiot, E =mc² is no axiom. Einstein wrote a paper proving it. If it were
an axiom there would be no need for a paper, just as there is no need to
prove 1+1=2.

Your raging hatred for the man is out of control. Please wipe the foam
from your mouth. Must be from eating too much shit.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:04:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Idiot, E =mc² is no axiom. Einstein wrote a paper proving it. If it were
> an axiom there would be no need for a paper, just as there is no need to
> prove 1+1=2.
>
> Your raging hatred for the man is out of control. Please wipe the foam
> from your mouth. Must be from eating too much shit.

Moroney, it's painful to see how aging badly is taking a heavy toll on your mind.

I wrote a detailed post (the 2nd. one here) proving that Einstein's paper is worthless, as it is wrong and false.
But for you, it's true written in stone, and you can't do nothing else except believing it or face charges of heresy
from your relativistic buddies here or within worshippers at your local pagan einstenian church.

It takes an open mind (and some work) to read and think about conclusions over the 2nd. post, which is EXACTLY
the FULL paper on E =mc² but seen under a new light. I didn't change A SINGLE BIT of information that Einstein
delivered. Only I rearrange the same equations in a different form, to show dirty tricks (that he played on mind's like yours),
to create the ILLUSION of a linear and sincere chain of thoughts.

But you can keep your credo if it makes your life easier and more comfortable. It happens with people that bury their heads
into the sand, repeating: If I don't see it, it doesn't exist (the fallacies and wrongdoings).

An axiom about E =mc² is what has been created around it, as years passed by: DON'T QUESTION SUCH AXIOM, AS IT'S GOOD
FOR US. It work for physicist and chemist, simplifying their work and lives (i.e.: Let's use it to give sense of the mystery of
missing mass in atomic physics and chemistry). So, if you challenge that E =mc² is false, you are challenging an axiom, so you
have to be nuts for doing so. Try questioning the axiom "the point exist", and see how does it work out for you (Hint: nothing
pretty).

As I said to you once: read the fucking 2nd. post and then criticize me! But don't do if you're an opinionated lazy dog.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:25:18 AM UTC-7, uber crank Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:
> I wrote a detailed piece of garbage (the 2nd. one here) proving my imbecility

Cretinoid,

E=mc^2 is experimentally and practically proven . Keep eating your favorite food: shit.

I apologize for my error. I didn't notice that this post was going to the wrong thread, because I didn't delete
"Re: Dono is a lying cunt"

Here it goes again, now in the right thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dono, always being in denial. I post this for you to enjoy:

1) A sample of the wisdom of your fucking pagan god. Here is what the "genius" wrote at the
end of his 1905 paper, concerning inertia and energy. I copy it literally:

--------------------------------------------------------
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass
changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree
(e.g. with RADIUM SALTS) the theory may be SUCCESSFULLY PUT TO THE TEST.

If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the
emitting and absorbing bodies."
-----------------------------------------------------

Do you get it, Dono? Your retarded icon of science proposed to use "radium salts" in an experiment to
measure mass changes due to energy radiation!

He didn't have a clue about radioactivity, even when works on it were being done for 7 years by then, and
Rutherford had already proved alpha and beta radiation (corpuscles, not light) being radiated.

But the fatal blow to his coherence (or lack of) is detailed in 2), with the photons he had invented months before.
Always fallacious, hypocrite and liar. He introduced wave-particle duality paradox in two papers, three months apart
one from each other, in 1905.

2) PROOF OF CYNICISM OR IDIOCY

Had he used TWO PHOTONS with L/2 = hf energy each (after all he invented them, not Planck neither von Lenard),
he could have find the way to prove that:

Mo = M1 + dM = Mo + 2hf/c² as the mass before and after the emission of two photons in opposite ways, being:

Mo: Mass BEFORE the emission of two photons
M1: Mass AFTER the emission of two photons

But, what would have happened at this part of his paper?

Ho – Eo = Ko + C
H1 – E1 = K1 + C

Ko – K1 = L ( γ – 1) = 2 . hf . ( γ – 1)

Now, the UGLY TRUTH:

Ko – K1 = ½ (L/c²) . v² turns to be ½ (2hf/c²) . v² [He invented photons early in the same year, so L = 2hf]

so, his famous dM = L/c² turns out to be: dM = 2hf/c²

And NOW, the fucker is trapped, since he HAD GIVEN MASS to LIGHT (also, anticipating de Broglie by 18 years).

So, after giving mass to light, the only remaining thing was to prove M1 = Mo - 2hf/c².

And that's an impossible task, even for the most crazy thought experiment. Circular reasoning.

---------------------------------------

See what happen when you clean a messy paper, Dono?

Instead of using two ambiguous beams of light, each with L/2 energy, I replaced them by the purest expression
of light energy: PHOTONS (which he invented the same year), with L/2 = hf energy each.

And the consequences of this clear way of thinking are:

1) Either light has mass, with dM/2 = hf/c² MASS PER PHOTON or

2) E = m . c² approximation is WRONG and completely FALSE due to fallacious and tricky derivation.

Which one do you like, Dono?

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 12:52:22 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> snip long list of cretinisms spouted by crank Richard Hertz<
> 2) E = m . c² approximation is WRONG and completely FALSE due to fallacious and tricky derivation.

Imbecile,

What don't you understand in " E = m . c² is validated by daily practice"?

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:56:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip>

> What don't you understand in " E = m . c² is validated by daily practice"?

I can accept E ≈ m . c², as natural philosophers epistemological history on this matter exist for
about 150 years. Just philosophical proposals , not a single physical proof..

The closest one with a "theoretical" proof was Hasenhorl (1904, 1905) and his E = 0.75 . m . c².

Easier is adopt E = m . c² axiomatically and fix everything around it, like c was adopted as a fixed constant.

Imagine what would happen with explanations about Hubble's discovery if c wasn't considered an universal constant.
Bye bye explanations about an universe under expansion, using red-shifting or blue-shifting and ADOPTED standard for
luminosity vs. distance and the use of c as standard to evaluate galaxies spectrum of light.

What would happen if the value of c decreases with a value related to H = 70 km/sec/Mparsec to compensate spectral
shift on wavelengths and the truth is that the universe is pseudo-static (Hoyle)? Oh! The horror!

Axioms: geometry grew from a very few and also calculus, advanced math, etc.. And physics grew along with them.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 2:53:40 PM UTC-7, stubborn crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:56:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> <snip>
> > What don't you understand in " E = m . c² is validated by daily practice"?
> I can accept E ≈ m . c², as natural philosophers epistemological history on this matter exist for
> about 150 years. Just philosophical proposals , not a single physical proof.
>

Cretinoid, all nuclear centrals; functionality are physical proof of E ≈ m . c². You got a new asshole ripped up. Congratulations!

On 8/21/2021 11:25 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:04:57 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Idiot, E =mc² is no axiom. Einstein wrote a paper proving it. If it were
>> an axiom there would be no need for a paper, just as there is no need to
>> prove 1+1=2.
>>
>> Your raging hatred for the man is out of control. Please wipe the foam
>> from your mouth. Must be from eating too much shit.
>
> Moroney, it's painful to see how aging badly is taking a heavy toll on your mind.
>
> I wrote a detailed post (the 2nd. one here) proving that Einstein's paper is worthless, as it is wrong and false.
> But for you, it's true written in stone, and you can't do nothing else except believing it or face charges of heresy
> from your relativistic buddies here or within worshippers at your local pagan einstenian church.
>
> It takes an open mind (and some work) to read and think about conclusions over the 2nd. post, which is EXACTLY
> the FULL paper on E =mc² but seen under a new light. I didn't change A SINGLE BIT of information that Einstein
> delivered. Only I rearrange the same equations in a different form, to show dirty tricks (that he played on mind's like yours),
> to create the ILLUSION of a linear and sincere chain of thoughts.

Your raging hatred for the man continues unabated. You have even more
foam around the mouth than I thought possible.

Einstein made a proof of E=mc². You may not like it, but too bad for
you. In doing so, E=mc² is not an axiom. Your post purportedly
refuting it is just more of your hate motivated bias. It makes no sense.

For Dono and Moroney, in despair for trying to sell their conviction that Einstein discovered
and proved E=mc² in 3 pages, by 1905.

Maybe, as Dono says, you both can get a new asshole ripped up by reading the article at this link:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/

Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc²?
The great physicist was not the first to equate forms of mass to energy, nor did he definitively prove the relationship
By Tony Rothman on August 24, 2015

Some excerpts from the article, whose author can't be labeled as "nazi or antisemite". Or can any of you?
(read about his career at the bottom of the article):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to scientific folklore, Albert Einstein formulated this equation in 1905 and, in a single blow, explained how
energy can be released in stars and nuclear explosions. This is a vast oversimplification. Einstein was neither the
first person to consider the equivalence of mass and energy, nor did he actually prove it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late 19th-century natural philosophers believed that electromagnetism was more fundamental than Isaac Newton’s
laws of motion and that the electromagnetic field itself should provide the origin of mass. In 1881 J. J. Thomson,
later a discoverer of the electron, made the first attempt to demonstrate how this might come about by explicitly
calculating the magnetic field generated by a moving charged sphere and showing that the field in turn induced
a mass into the sphere itself.
...........
in his case the effective mass of the sphere was the entire mass induced by the magnetic field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson’s slightly complicated result depended on the object’s charge, radius and magnetic permeability,
but in 1889 English physicist Oliver Heaviside simplified his work to show that the effective mass should be
m = (4⁄3) E/c², where E is the energy of the sphere’s electric field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
German physicists Wilhelm Wien, famous for his investigations into blackbody radiation, and Max Abraham
got the same result, which became known as the “electromagnetic mass” of the classical electron (which was
nothing more than a tiny, charged sphere).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not, however, the last. When Englishman John Henry Poynting announced in 1884 a celebrated theorem
on the conservation of energy for the electromagnetic field, other scientists quickly attempted to extend
conservation laws to mass plus energy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, in 1900 the ubiquitous Henri Poincaré stated that if one required that the momentum of any particles
present in an electromagnetic field plus the momentum of the field itself be conserved together, then Poynting’s
theorem predicted that the field acts as a “fictitious fluid” with mass such that E = mc².

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of investigations widened again in 1904 when Fritz Hasenöhrl created a thought experiment
involving heat energy in a moving cavity. Largely forgotten today except by Einstein detractors, Hasenöhrl
was at the time more famous than the obscure patent clerk.

Then one of Austria’s leading physicists, he wrote a prize-winning trilogy of papers, “On the theory of radiation
in moving bodies,” the last two of which appeared in the Annalen der Physik in 1904 and early 1905.
........................
After a communication from Abraham, however, he uncovered an algebraic error and in his third paper corrected
both results to m = (4⁄3) E/c².
......................
In considering the mass inherent in heat Hasenöhrl extended the previous deliberations beyond the electromagnetic
field of charged objects to a broader thought experiment very similar to Einstein’s own of the following year, which
gave birth to E = mc².
.....................
Nevertheless, Hasenöhrl was correct enough that Max Planck could say in 1909, “That the black body radiation
possesses inertia was first pointed out by F. Hasenöhrl.” Black body radiation—heat—has mass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein’s famous 1905 E = mc² paper, “Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?” considers only a
point particle emitting a burst of radiation and asks, as Hasenöhrl did, how the system looks from a moving reference frame.
.........................
In considering a cavity of finite length Hasenöhrl was being much more audacious, or reckless. Extended bodies have
produced numerous and prolonged headaches in special relativity, such as the fact that the mass of the classical
electron also comes out to m = (4⁄3) E/c².
........................
Equally surprising is that although Einstein was the first to propose the correct relationship, E = mc², he didn’t
actually prove it, at least according to his own special relativity.
.......................
He was aware of the shortcomings of his derivation and wrote a half dozen more papers over the next 40 years
trying to patch things up but arguably never succeeded.
.......................
One naturally wonders whether Einstein knew of Hasenöhrl’s work. It is difficult to believe that he did not, given
that the bulk of the prize-winning trilogy appeared in the most prominent journal of the day.
......................
And so, although Einstein achieved a definite conceptual advance in equating the mass of an object with its total
energy content—whether or not it is moving, whether or not it has an electromagnetic field—we can also credit
Hasenöhrl for unambiguously recognizing that heat itself possess an equivalent mass, and physicists before him
for providing a chain of shoulders on which to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is thread from a rather decent site, Researchgate.net, where people involved in scientific activities
discuss topics without insults (Moderator is active). Has more than 100 answers.

Does the formula E = mc² belongs to Einstein ?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_formula_E_mC2_belongs_to_Einstein2

One interesting post credit the origin to Maxwell, which is reflected in the thoughts of scientists
that I mentioned in my previous post.

I quote:

"[4] The derivation of E = mc² originates from Maxwell’s formula [ f = δE/cδt ] which equates the force exerted on an
absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of
the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the
momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum
of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c² is derived."

"As for the origin of the formula, it wasn’t until five years before his death (1955) that Einstein publicly attributed the basis
of E = mc² to the 1862 charge-momentum field equations of James Clerk Maxwell[2]"

"A curious twist in this saga occurs in 1881 with J. J. Thomson in his work with charged spherical conductors in motion,
since he derived a slightly higher coefficient, E = 4/3mc² [8] The same E = 4/3mc² was found by F. Hasenöhrl in 1904."

"The history of the 4/3 coefficient is intriguing. Arthur Miller shows both its origin and how Einstein sought to remove it.
Although Einstein purports to have legitimately removed it, Miller shows he did not succeed. Einstein had attributed the
excess 1/3 to mechanical constraints, but Poincaré had demonstrated earlier that it was due to forces that avoid the
explosion of the electron."

"Prior to this, in 1889 Oliver Heaviside used the E = mc² principle in his work with capacitors.[15] Henri Poincaré used the
rudiments of the E = mc² formula long before Einstein commandeered it for his Special and General Relativity theories.[16]
In 1903 the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto had already published E = mc² two years before Einstein did, but Einstein did not
mention De Pretto in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, which is odd considering that he spoke fluent Italian and, by his own
admission, read all the Italian physics journals.[17] In 1907, Max Planck, expanding the work of Hasenöhrl and using Poincaré’s momentum of radiation formula, gave the final derivation of the E = mc² formula.[18] All in all, E = mc2 is readily derivable apart
from the theory of Relativity, as both Joseph Larmor in 1912; Wolfgang Pauli in 1920, Philipp Lenard in 1921, and M. Simhony
in 1994, demonstrated independently.[19]"

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

MY NOTE: It's probable that de Pretto followed the work of Heaviside with capacitors, from where he derived his own equation,
similar to the ones of JJ Thomson and Hasenhorl.

Olinto de Pretto MAYBE was using the quotient between Electrostatic Energy and Mass of an electron,

Ee = αħc/2r = e²/(4π.ε.ħc) . ħc/2r = e²/(8π.ε.r) [Thomson], in Joules under MKS system. Different in cgs system.

Me = e²/(6πc²r) [Lorentz], in units gram under cgs system.

Ee/Me = e²/(8π.ε.r). (6πc²r)/e² = 1/(4.ε). (3c²) = 3/4.c²/ε

Ee/Me = (1/ε). 3/4.c² ε appears in conversion cgs --> MKS (I don't know how to get rid of it by now)

Anyways, maybe Heaviside and de Pretto deduced E = mc² by simpler means, being both practical men, using Maxwell and capacitors.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 10:10:52 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz babbled:
> For Dono and Moroney,

The point is, utter crank. that, contrary to your demented claims, E=mc^2 is valid. So, you ate a lot of shit once again. Slither back into your poisonous snake hole you came from.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:29:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> The point is, utter crank. that, contrary to your demented claims, E=mc^2 is valid. So, you ate a lot of shit once again. Slither back into your poisonous snake hole you came from.

The point, fucking retarded, is that E = mc² IS AN AXIOM (never proven, no need for that).

But, even with the effort due to the use of c=1 in natural units, giving E = m, IN THE REAL WORLD it has been proven
that possesses non-commutative properties because there IS NOT A SINGLE PROOF that you can use m = E, but only E = m.

In 100 years, not a single experiment has derived matter from energy, except in Star Trek original or TOS.

But it didn't prevent Chadwick (1932) to express his discovery in:

The Existence of a Neutron
by J. Chadwick, F.R.S.
(Received May 10, 1932)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0112

Excerpt from the ORIGINAL PAPER:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy equation of the process is

Mass of B¹¹ + mass of H⁴ + K.E. of H⁴ = mass of N¹⁴ + mass of n¹ + K.E. of N¹⁴ + K.E. of n¹

The masses are: B¹¹ = 11.0825 ± 0.0016 ; H⁴ = 4.00106 ± 0.0006 ; N¹⁴ = 14.0042 ± 0.0028 .
The kinetic energies are α-particle = 0.00565 ; neutron = 0.0035 ; and nitrogen nucleus = 0.00061.
We find therefore that the mass of the neutron is 1.0067 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See how easy is it now (by 1932). You use c=1 and are able to add and subtract mass and energy back and forth.
By then, atomic mass units (amu) were used, so you didn't need to use cgs, MKS or whatever.

It was left to further legions of technicians, bureaucrats of science and low level physicists and mathematicians to
accommodate the shitty mess that E = m left behind, with c = 1.

Today, MeV/c² as unit of mass has been adopted in the SMEP (standard model), but in practice (any paper) c is set to 1,
So you have now the desired E = m. Electron rest mass and energy (example) are both 0.511 MeV, and physicists abuse
of addition and subtraction in MeV, don't giving a shit about if they are talking on mass or energy.

Do you understand, fucking retarded, why I say that E = mc² is an AXIOM?

Because it makes life easy in physics and else, with a simple exchange of mass units with energy units, setting c=1.

Some thing with the value of c, settled to a fixed value axiomatically. Everything fixed, let's move on to the next problem!

Retarded, uber cretin Dono, do you understand now?

The world of science still wants to judge Einstein..
What makes you think you can judge the
genius that did not do what you say..?
Feynman monkeyed in that way
over Einstein's gravity drop off strength...
Feynman is guilty of what you say
instead. of Einstein..

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:25:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I wrote a detailed post (the 2nd. one here) proving that Einstein's paper is worthless, as it is wrong and false.

When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:29:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The point is, utter crank. that, contrary to your demented claims,
>> E=mc^2 is valid. So, you ate a lot of shit once again. Slither back into
>> your poisonous snake hole you came from.
>
> The point, fucking retarded, is that E = mc² IS AN AXIOM (never proven, no need for that).

No physics theory is ever proven. Strawman complaint. Now ask whether the
equation is consistent with mountains of experimental data. Why yes, it is.

>
> But, even with the effort due to the use of c=1 in natural units, giving
> E = m, IN THE REAL WORLD it has been proven
> that possesses non-commutative properties because there IS NOT A SINGLE
> PROOF that you can use m = E, but only E = m.
>
> In 100 years, not a single experiment has derived matter from energy,
> except in Star Trek original or TOS.
>
> But it didn't prevent Chadwick (1932) to express his discovery in:
>
> The Existence of a Neutron
> by J. Chadwick, F.R.S.
> (Received May 10, 1932)
>
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0112
>
> Excerpt from the ORIGINAL PAPER:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The energy equation of the process is
>
> Mass of B¹¹ + mass of H⁴ + K.E. of H⁴ = mass of N¹⁴ + mass of n¹ +
> K.E. of N¹⁴ + K.E. of n¹
>
> The masses are: B¹¹ = 11.0825 ± 0.0016 ; H⁴ = 4.00106 ± 0.0006 ; N¹⁴
> = 14.0042 ± 0.0028 .
> The kinetic energies are α-particle = 0.00565 ; neutron = 0.0035 ; and
> nitrogen nucleus = 0.00061.
> We find therefore that the mass of the neutron is 1.0067 .
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See how easy is it now (by 1932). You use c=1 and are able to add and
> subtract mass and energy back and forth.
> By then, atomic mass units (amu) were used, so you didn't need to use cgs, MKS or whatever.
>
> It was left to further legions of technicians, bureaucrats of science and
> low level physicists and mathematicians to
> accommodate the shitty mess that E = m left behind, with c = 1.
>
> Today, MeV/c² as unit of mass has been adopted in the SMEP (standard
> model), but in practice (any paper) c is set to 1,
> So you have now the desired E = m. Electron rest mass and energy
> (example) are both 0.511 MeV, and physicists abuse
> of addition and subtraction in MeV, don't giving a shit about if they are
> talking on mass or energy.
>
> Do you understand, fucking retarded, why I say that E = mc² is an AXIOM?
>
> Because it makes life easy in physics and else, with a simple exchange of
> mass units with energy units, setting c=1.
>
> Some thing with the value of c, settled to a fixed value axiomatically.
> Everything fixed, let's move on to the next problem!
>
> Retarded, uber cretin Dono, do you understand now?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 12:05:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> This is thread from a rather decent site, Researchgate.net

Are you sure about this claim?

310327416_ResearchGate_is_no_longer_reliable_Leniency_towards_ghost_journals_may_decrease_its_impact_on_the_scientific_community

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22793

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06945-6

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:02:16 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 12:05:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > This is thread from a rather decent site, Researchgate.net
> Are you sure about this claim?
>
> 310327416_ResearchGate_is_no_longer_reliable_Leniency_towards_ghost_journals_may_decrease_its_impact_on_the_scientific_community
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22793
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06945-6

I've read about it, and also noticed new members with dubious credentials.

Yet, when I wrote "rather decent site° I had in mind the effort that forum members do to avoid
going through each other throat! It's very funny to read.

On 8/22/2021 2:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:29:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The point is, utter crank. that, contrary to your demented claims, E=mc^2 is valid. So, you ate a lot of shit once again. Slither back into your poisonous snake hole you came from.
>
> The point, fucking retarded, is that E = mc² IS AN AXIOM (never proven, no need for that).

Nothing is ever proven in physics, only disproven or supported. E =
mc² is NOT an axiom, it is well supported physics.
>
> But, even with the effort due to the use of c=1 in natural units, giving E = m, IN THE REAL WORLD it has been proven
> that possesses non-commutative properties because there IS NOT A SINGLE PROOF that you can use m = E, but only E = m.
>
> In 100 years, not a single experiment has derived matter from energy, except in Star Trek original or TOS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Nothing is ever proven in physics, only disproven or supported. E = mc² is NOT an axiom, it is well supported physics.

Really? As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics
(or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by using GR approximation?).

The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom). E = mc² is true (axiom).

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:54:27 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 8:25:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I wrote a detailed post (the 2nd. one here) proving that Einstein's paper is worthless, as it is wrong and false.
> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

What Paul wrote here is most definitely NOT a joke. ANYONE who published
a proof that Einstein's paper had a fatal mistake of some sort in it would get
not only a Nobel (that's just a one-time cash reward :-) ) but also a VERY
cosy sinecure at a research institute of his/her choice, with no teaching
duties.

That person would be set for life of high prestige and influence.

I know that this goes against all the Hollywoodesque fantasies abundant
around these parts but reality does not care one iota.

--
Jan

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 1:37:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Nothing is ever proven in physics, only disproven or supported. E = mc² is NOT an axiom, it is well supported physics.
> Really?

Yes, particle accelerators which are very expensive machines rely on it. If you think you
have a proof that this is false, let all the banks and other investors know so they won't
waste any more money on them.

> As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics
> (or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by using GR approximation?).
>
> The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom). E = mc² is true (axiom).

This does not even make grammatical sense.

Schwarzschild did not use any "GR approximation" in his derivation.

--
Jan