Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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?

Really.

> As point-like mass is supported by experiments,

Some particles appear to have mass but no measurable radius.

> measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics

Where that is within the bounds of precision needed.

>
> (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).

Both the first and last are consistent with experiment. The second is the
establishment of a conversion factor, no more remarkable than setting 1
inch to 2.54 cm exactly.

I think you are confused about axioms and hypotheses consistent with
experiment.

>
>
>

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

Richard Hertz wrote:
> there IS NOT A SINGLE PROOF that you can use you can use m = E, but only E = m.

Retired engineers are charming.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:10:38 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> 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

Jan:

1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations: an universe void of matter
with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.

2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A second approximation.

Read the English translation (1923) of the original paper. It's available for free downloading.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:19:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom). E = mc² is true (axiom).
> Both the first and last are consistent with experiment. The second is the
> establishment of a conversion factor, no more remarkable than setting 1
> inch to 2.54 cm exactly.
>
> I think you are confused about axioms and hypotheses consistent with experiment.

Of course they are consistent with experiments. Thousand of persons, along decades,
worked so the systems of units (standards) be compliant with what is needed

Traduce the Chadwick 1932 equation in modern MKS units and eV, and tell me how did
you go from atomic mass units (amu, u or Da) to MeV and Kg. Will you?

Because for Chadwick, E = m obviously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I don't have any confusion. Don't project your doubts on me.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:54:27 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?

Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:22:18 AM UTC-7, 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.
> E = mc² IS AN AXIOM (never proven, no need for that).

Dumbestfuck

E = mc² is confirmed daily , in practice, via the functionality of nuclear reactors. Have another shoveful of shit. Open wide. Now swallow.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:19:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom). E = mc² is true (axiom).
>> Both the first and last are consistent with experiment. The second is the
>> establishment of a conversion factor, no more remarkable than setting 1
>> inch to 2.54 cm exactly.
>>
>> I think you are confused about axioms and hypotheses consistent with experiment.
>
> Of course they are consistent with experiments. Thousand of persons, along decades,
> worked so the systems of units (standards) be compliant with what is needed
>
> Traduce the Chadwick 1932 equation in modern MKS units and eV, and tell me how did
> you go from atomic mass units (amu, u or Da) to MeV and Kg. Will you?

MeV/c^2 actually. Of course, in natural units, c=1.

>
> Because for Chadwick, E = m obviously.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 .

Where the units of the kinetic energies are what? And how do you suppose
those quantities were determined experimentally?

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And I don't have any confusion. Don't project your doubts on me.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

That’s right, folklore. The kind of popsci crap that is printed in
newspapers and in crappy books. This article was put in place to let common
people (the readers of Scientific American) know that Einstein worship by
common folk is silly thing to do, borne of oversimplification of the
actually history. But this is not a surprise to physicists in any way. Only
to common people who need to be lectured now and again to stop gushing at
people just because they’re famous. That’s you, bub.

> 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Python <python@python.invalid> wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>> there IS NOT A SINGLE PROOF that you can use you can use m = E, but only E = m.
>
> Retired engineers are charming.
>

I wonder sometimes if stirring the pot is still as fun for retired
engineers when it requires saying something spectacularly stupid to move
the spoon.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/22/2021 4:37 PM, 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?

Really. A theory can apparently be correct by experiment, but another
theory can come along and have cases where the first theory is wrong.
Newtonian mechanics and SR are exactly that. Newtonian mechanics seemed
completely correct before the 20th Century, but SR indicated it would be
incorrect at relativistic velocities. So Newtonian Mechanics was never
proven correct, it was supported as highly accurate under certain
conditions.

> As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics

You are starting to babble. It can be proven (mathematically, not in
physics) that a point mass and uniform sphere will act identically under
the inverse square law (as in Newtonian gravity). Is this what you want
to discuss?

> (or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by using GR approximation?).

No, using GR. Period.
>
> The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom).

Not during Einstein's time. Besides that was just a redefinition of the
meter. A definition is not an axiom.

E = mc² is true (axiom).

Does not follow. It is not an axiom, even if you incorrectly allow for
a definition of the meter to be an axiom.

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

No comment? I take it then, that you agree this is a perfect example of
deriving mass from energy, and you were wrong about deriving matter from
energy is a Star Trek only thing.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:03:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Traduce the Chadwick 1932 equation in modern MKS units and eV, and tell me how did
> > you go from atomic mass units (amu, u or Da) to MeV and Kg. Will you?
> MeV/c^2 actually. Of course, in natural units, c=1.
> >
> > Because for Chadwick, E = m obviously.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 .

> Where the units of the kinetic energies are what? And how do you suppose
> those quantities were determined experimentally?

See, Bodkin? Another proof that you are an opinionated person type I-know-it-all,
but whose opinions are based on your exaggerated self-esteem (highly exaggerated).
You read one post and post your opinion without additional reasoning.

Had you read it correctly, or my previous post on this matter, from 8 hours ago,
you'd know that I posted an exact excerpt from the original Chadwick's paper,
which I did to the extent to even REPRODUCE every bit of his original notation.

And if you had MEMORY (lack of it being an early symptom of senility), you'd
have recalled that I use the same excerpt in a similar discussion two years ago,
only that this time I put the exact notation.

Here I pasted the part that I wrote 8 hours ago. No units for K.E. and about the
experiment, Chadwick won a Nobel Prize due to such paper and his discovery
of the neutron.

Shame on you, Bodkin!

*****************************************************************************************************
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 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************************************************

Did you see how happily he adds and subtract mass and energy in 1932, as of today?

That's how E=mc² (in natural units E = m) made such a devastation in physics since
its adoption as an AXIOM.

The idea behind is how collective behavior redefines the social contract under which civilization
is built. If every single person is a thief, then theft is the normality. If every single
person kill any other, for whatever reason, there is no reason to punish homicide, etc....

Read the paper and reason about my points or (because nobody can tell you what to do)
continue with your world of fantasies and axioms (without knowing).

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:32:49 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 4:37 PM, 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?
> Really. A theory can apparently be correct by experiment, but another
> theory can come along and have cases where the first theory is wrong.
> Newtonian mechanics and SR are exactly that. Newtonian mechanics seemed
> completely correct before the 20th Century, but SR indicated it would be
> incorrect at relativistic velocities. So Newtonian Mechanics was never
> proven correct, it was supported as highly accurate under certain
> conditions.
> > As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics
> You are starting to babble. It can be proven (mathematically, not in
> physics) that a point mass and uniform sphere will act identically under
> the inverse square law (as in Newtonian gravity). Is this what you want
> to discuss?
> > (or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by using GR approximation?).
> No, using GR. Period.
> >
> > The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom).
> Not during Einstein's time. Besides that was just a redefinition of the
> meter. A definition is not an axiom.
> E = mc² is true (axiom).
> Does not follow. It is not an axiom, even if you incorrectly allow for
> a definition of the meter to be an axiom.
>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>
> No comment? I take it then, that you agree this is a perfect example of
> deriving mass from energy, and you were wrong about deriving matter from
> energy is a Star Trek only thing.

I replied this to JanPB. Are you copying Bodkin's "modus operandi", without reading the last posts
in the thread? This reply was almost under your nose, two hours ago:

******************************************************************************
Jan:

1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations: an universe void of matter
with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.

2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A second approximation.

Read the English translation (1923) of the original paper. It's available for free downloading.
******************************************************************************

I laugh at this: "a definition is not an axiom".

Let me see. 2400 years ago, Euclid said: " I define that a point is that which has no part."

Definition of the existence of a point as an axiom? YES, as a part of Euclid's elements.

https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/defI1.html

On 8/22/2021 11:07 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:32:49 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/22/2021 4:37 PM, 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?
>> Really. A theory can apparently be correct by experiment, but another
>> theory can come along and have cases where the first theory is wrong.
>> Newtonian mechanics and SR are exactly that. Newtonian mechanics seemed
>> completely correct before the 20th Century, but SR indicated it would be
>> incorrect at relativistic velocities. So Newtonian Mechanics was never
>> proven correct, it was supported as highly accurate under certain
>> conditions.

>>> As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space travels by newtonian mechanics

>> You are starting to babble. It can be proven (mathematically, not in
>> physics) that a point mass and uniform sphere will act identically under
>> the inverse square law (as in Newtonian gravity). Is this what you want
>> to discuss?
>>> (or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by using GR approximation?).
>> No, using GR. Period.
>>>
>>> The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom).
>> Not during Einstein's time. Besides that was just a redefinition of the
>> meter. A definition is not an axiom.
>> E = mc² is true (axiom).
>> Does not follow. It is not an axiom, even if you incorrectly allow for
>> a definition of the meter to be an axiom.
>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>
>> No comment? I take it then, that you agree this is a perfect example of
>> deriving mass from energy, and you were wrong about deriving matter from
>> energy is a Star Trek only thing.
>
> I replied this to JanPB. Are you copying Bodkin's "modus operandi", without reading the last posts
> in the thread? This reply was almost under your nose, two hours ago:
>
> ******************************************************************************
> Jan:
>
> 1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations: an universe void of matter
> with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.

No, it is a simplification.
>
> 2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A second approximation.

Any good engineer would be able to compare the mass of Mercury to the
sun and determine the error produced by the simplification of setting
the mass of Mercury to 0.

Even now the definitions of electric and (Newtonian) gravitational
fields assume the force on a charge or mass of infinitesimal value, so
that its own field doesn't interfere with the main object's field.

> I laugh at this: "a definition is not an axiom".

It's amusing what cranks laugh at sometimes.
>
> Let me see. 2400 years ago, Euclid said: " I define that a point is that which has no part."
>
> Definition of the existence of a point as an axiom? YES, as a part of Euclid's elements.
>
> https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/defI1.html
>

That very article goes on to state that the point "definition" is a
primitive or a postulate. A definition of a point is quite different
from the definition of a unit in terms of different units, like the
meter in terms of a constant and the second. A completely different
meaning of definition.

Now tell us about how pair production produces matter from energy and
how you were wrong about that.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:03:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Traduce the Chadwick 1932 equation in modern MKS units and eV, and tell me how did
>>> you go from atomic mass units (amu, u or Da) to MeV and Kg. Will you?
>> MeV/c^2 actually. Of course, in natural units, c=1.
>>>
>>> Because for Chadwick, E = m obviously.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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 .
>
>> Where the units of the kinetic energies are what? And how do you suppose
>> those quantities were determined experimentally?
>
> See, Bodkin? Another proof that you are an opinionated person type I-know-it-all,
> but whose opinions are based on your exaggerated self-esteem (highly exaggerated).
> You read one post and post your opinion without additional reasoning.
>
> Had you read it correctly, or my previous post on this matter, from 8 hours ago,
> you'd know that I posted an exact excerpt from the original Chadwick's paper,
> which I did to the extent to even REPRODUCE every bit of his original notation.

Yes, I know. And yet you still didn’t answer the question. What are the
units of kinetic energy there? And how do you imagine those numbers were
produced from experimental measurement? If you honestly can’t figure it
out, just say so.

>
> And if you had MEMORY (lack of it being an early symptom of senility), you'd
> have recalled that I use the same excerpt in a similar discussion two years ago,
> only that this time I put the exact notation.

LOL. I empty my brain of 90% of what you say within a few hours. It’s a
neurologic process called “garbage collection.”

>
> Here I pasted the part that I wrote 8 hours ago. No units for K.E. and about the
> experiment, Chadwick won a Nobel Prize due to such paper and his discovery
> of the neutron.
>
> Shame on you, Bodkin!
>
> *****************************************************************************************************
> 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 .
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ******************************************************************************************
>
> Did you see how happily he adds and subtract mass and energy in 1932, as of today?
>
> That's how E=mc² (in natural units E = m) made such a devastation in physics since
> its adoption as an AXIOM.
>
> The idea behind is how collective behavior redefines the social contract
> under which civilization
> is built. If every single person is a thief, then theft is the normality. If every single
> person kill any other, for whatever reason, there is no reason to punish homicide, etc....
>
> Read the paper and reason about my points or (because nobody can tell you what to do)
> continue with your world of fantasies and axioms (without knowing).
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 11:32:49 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/22/2021 4:37 PM, 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?
>> Really. A theory can apparently be correct by experiment, but another
>> theory can come along and have cases where the first theory is wrong.
>> Newtonian mechanics and SR are exactly that. Newtonian mechanics seemed
>> completely correct before the 20th Century, but SR indicated it would be
>> incorrect at relativistic velocities. So Newtonian Mechanics was never
>> proven correct, it was supported as highly accurate under certain
>> conditions.
>>> As point-like mass is supported by experiments, measurements and space
>>> travels by newtonian mechanics
>> You are starting to babble. It can be proven (mathematically, not in
>> physics) that a point mass and uniform sphere will act identically under
>> the inverse square law (as in Newtonian gravity). Is this what you want
>> to discuss?
>>> (or the "exact" Schwarzschild's derivation for Mercury's perihelion by
>>> using GR approximation?).
>> No, using GR. Period.
>>>
>>> The point exists (axiom). c = 299792458 m/s (axiom).
>> Not during Einstein's time. Besides that was just a redefinition of the
>> meter. A definition is not an axiom.
>> E = mc² is true (axiom).
>> Does not follow. It is not an axiom, even if you incorrectly allow for
>> a definition of the meter to be an axiom.
>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>>
>> No comment? I take it then, that you agree this is a perfect example of
>> deriving mass from energy, and you were wrong about deriving matter from
>> energy is a Star Trek only thing.
>
> I replied this to JanPB. Are you copying Bodkin's "modus operandi",
> without reading the last posts
> in the thread? This reply was almost under your nose, two hours ago:
>
> ******************************************************************************
> Jan:
>
> 1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations: an
> universe void of matter
> with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.
>
> 2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A
> second approximation.
>
> Read the English translation (1923) of the original paper. It's available
> for free downloading.
> ******************************************************************************
>
> I laugh at this: "a definition is not an axiom".
>
> Let me see. 2400 years ago, Euclid said: " I define that a point is that
> which has no part."
>
> Definition of the existence of a point as an axiom? YES, as a part of Euclid's elements.
>
> https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/defI1.html
>
>

Silly boy! Definitions are contextual. The definition of “point” in
mathematics doesn’t have a lot of relevance to “point-like” in physics. Are
you going to play THAT juvenile game?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:10:38 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > 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
> Jan:
>
> 1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations: an universe void of matter
> with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.

This is not what a physics calls approximation. It's an idealisation. This is done all the time,
starting with Newton, or even before him (I'm not sure about the history here).

> 2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A second approximation.

Ditto. In GR you'll very frequently (almost always) see timelike geodesics used as
object trajectories (test bodies, presumed of negligible mass).

> Read the English translation (1923) of the original paper. It's available for free downloading.

I've read it. Its derivation is correct but Schwarzschild made a mistake in
stating certain implications of his solution. Everyone did that until in the 1920s, IIRC,
when the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates appeared on the scene. And even then, it
was not noticed immediately what those coordinates meant for Schwarzschild's
solution (namely, that Schwarzschild's "r = 0" was not a point but a sphere AND this
sphere was non-singular).

This sort of thing happens now and then in science, people get ahead a bit too fast and
make an assumption which is incorrect. For example, in particle physics there were
some infamous divergent integrals that were due to hastily assuming certain
function was constant. Fixing this was given a bizarre name "renormalization".
Another example was people getting stuck until Higgs noticed something
about the relevant energy levels everyone had been overlooking by making
the "obvious" but wrong assumption.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:10:38 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>> 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
>> Jan:
>>
>> 1) Schwarzschild used the simplest expression for the field equations:
>> an universe void of matter
>> with a point-like mass at 0,0,0. This is an approximation.
>
> This is not what a physics calls approximation. It's an idealisation.
> This is done all the time,
> starting with Newton, or even before him (I'm not sure about the history here).

Bacon and Galilei before Newton. Bacon wrote about it as a general
approach. Galilei did it in his experiments with ramps, idealizing to the
case of no friction.

>
>> 2) Schwarzschild used a MASSLESS point-like object to depict Mercury. A
>> second approximation.
>
> Ditto. In GR you'll very frequently (almost always) see timelike geodesics used as
> object trajectories (test bodies, presumed of negligible mass).
>
>> Read the English translation (1923) of the original paper. It's
>> available for free downloading.
>
> I've read it. Its derivation is correct but Schwarzschild made a mistake in
> stating certain implications of his solution. Everyone did that until in the 1920s, IIRC,
> when the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates appeared on the scene. And even then, it
> was not noticed immediately what those coordinates meant for Schwarzschild's
> solution (namely, that Schwarzschild's "r = 0" was not a point but a sphere AND this
> sphere was non-singular).
>
> This sort of thing happens now and then in science, people get ahead a bit too fast and
> make an assumption which is incorrect. For example, in particle physics there were
> some infamous divergent integrals that were due to hastily assuming certain
> function was constant. Fixing this was given a bizarre name "renormalization".
> Another example was people getting stuck until Higgs noticed something
> about the relevant energy levels everyone had been overlooking by making
> the "obvious" but wrong assumption.
>
> --
> Jan
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:50:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:54:27 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

> Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?

> Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)

Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer the question directly in the first place?

When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
<snip>
> > > When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
>
> > Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?
>
> > Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)
> Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer the question directly in the first place?
> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm done with this "Einstein" stuff.
I don't find it amusing anymore.

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > > When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
> >
> > > Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?
> >
> > > Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)
> > Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer the question directly in the first place?
> > When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?

> You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm done with this "Einstein" stuff.
> I don't find it amusing anymore.

Well then, goodbye and good riddance...

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
>>
>>> Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?
>>
>>> Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911);
>>> Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)
>> Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer
>> the question directly in the first place?
>> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
>
> You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm
> done with this "Einstein" stuff.
> I don't find it amusing anymore.
>
>
>

It was silly to begin with.

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

Op 24-aug.-2021 om 05:44 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
>>
>>> Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?
>>
>>> Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)
>> Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer the question directly in the first place?
>> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
>
> You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm done with this "Einstein" stuff.
> I don't find it amusing anymore.

Liar.
Trump.
You'll be done with it when you die.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm
>> done with this "Einstein" stuff. I don't find it amusing anymore.
>
> Liar. Trump. You'll be done with it when you die.

if there are 7.8 billion sheep on earth, cabal needs 7.3 billion of them
taking the jab to meet their ga guidestones goal of 500 million left.

Apparently september is the deadline, for some unknown reason. They openly
say and write want over 90% of the populace vaccinated. The "booster" must
be the game over.

Nuremberg Code Punishable By Death
https://www.bitchute.com/video/pfifiifcu6MM/

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 4:28:54 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> snip hardon for Trump<

No question that Richard Hertz is a piece of shit. But so are you: https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/08/21/howie-carr-biden-voters-are-you-tired-of-losing-yet/

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 4:28:54 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 24-aug.-2021 om 05:44 schreef Richard Hertz:
> > On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>>> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
> >>
> >>> Does this sequence of Nobel Prizes in Physics tell something to you?
> >>
> >>> Lorentz (1902); von Lenard (1905); Michelson (1907); Wien (1911); Planck (1918) ---> Einstein (1921)
> >> Must you always answer a question with a question? Can't you just answer the question directly in the first place?
> >> When do you expect to hear from the Nobel committee?
> >
> > You are right. I'm tired of this shit about historic revisionism. I'm done with this "Einstein" stuff.
> > I don't find it amusing anymore.
> Liar.
> Trump.
> You'll be done with it when you die.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dirk, I love you to pieces but your TDS is a bit, I don't know. "Concerning" maybe is the right word?
Just WHAT exactly did Trump do to warrant that kind of obsession?

Consider that before 2016 Trump was a frequent guest on TV talk shows like Oprah Winfrey,
David Letterman, etc., always treated sympathetically. Oprah asked him once if he ever wanted
to run for president, he said "maybe", and she took it matter-of-factly. (I forget which year
it was.)

And suddenly, in 2016, Trump became "racist", "Hitler", "white supremacist",
"xenophobe", and all the rest.

Equally amazingly, a lot of people in the US (mostly the coastal intelligentsia) have
bought this 100%.

To me, raised in a communist country where such media manipulation was the
daily routine for decades, this was incomprehensible. How can American public
fall for that sort of obvious nonsense?

The guy grew up in Queens for goodness sake, he is a typical - as the saying goes -
"New York democrat". He was for gay marriage, for example, long before Obama and
Hillary Clinton were for it. As president, he released many black prisoners who were
doing long terms for minor offences. Incidentally, the very law that ALLOWED giving
those long prison terms for minor offences (e.g. "three strikes law", so you got slammed
with a long term if you stole a chocolate bar 3 times) was engineered and spearheaded
in the 1990s by a certain Joe Biden, who at the time proudly proclaimed on national TV that
we are doing, and I quote: "everything but hang people for jaywalking".

He also referred to the desegregated schools in the 1970s as, quote, "jungle", unquote.

Yet it is Trump - not Biden - who is called, inexplicably, "white supremacist". Like - of
all things - from Queens?? Hello?

Yes, Trump is also an uncouth braggart, egomaniac, and all that - again, that's
New York for you. There are many things I disagree with Trump but sometimes in
life one simply does not have an option to choose a great solution. Sometimes
the only option is a lame one (Trump) or an infinitely worse one (Biden - just look
at Afghanistan for starters).

--
Jan