On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:48:36 AM UTC-7, kapo POS Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> At any case, history has already been re-written, original docs and scratchpads from that epoch were burned,

Nothing was burned, lying piece of shit, all notepads are published by the "Einstein Papers" foundation at Caltech: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+Einstein+Papers

Keep swallowing shit, nazi-lover kapo.

This site contain a summary of the history of Annalen der Physik, and how evolved from
its predecessors since 1790. I quote just a small part:

http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/history.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annalen der Physik und Chemie, continued by J. Ch. Poggendorff

series 1: vol. 1-30 (resp. vol. 77-106), 1824-1833
series 2: vol. 1-30 (31-60) (resp. vol. 107-136), 1834-1843
series 3: vol. 1-30 (61-90) (resp. vol. 137-166), 1844-1853
series 4: vol. 1-30 (91-120) (resp. vol. 167-196), 1854-1863
series 5: vol. 1-30 (121-150) (resp. vol. 197-226), 1864-1873
series 6: vol. 1-10 (151-160) (resp. vol. 227-236), 1874-1877

Annalen der Physik und Chemie, new (3rd) series, in cooperation with the Physikalische Gesellschaft zu
Berlin, esp. with H. Helmholtz and (from 1894 when Helmholtz died) with M. Planck, edited by G. Wiedemann
(vol. 1-47) and by G. and E. Wiedemann (vol. 48-69)

vol. 1-69 (resp. vol. 237-305), 1877-1899

**********************************************
Annalen der Physik, 4th series, from now on in cooperation with the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, esp. with M. Planck

vol. 1-21 (resp. vol. 306-326), 1900-1906, edited by P. Drude
vol. 22-87 (resp. vol. 327-392), 1907-1928, edited by W. Wien and M. Planck

Annalen der Physik, 5th series

vol. 1-43 (resp. vol. 393-435), 1929-1943, edited by E. Grüneisen and M. Planck
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As it can be seen at the part highlighted with *************, 21 volumes were printed in 7 years (1900-1906, 3 vol/year) and
65 volumes were printed in 22 years (1907-1928, 3 vol/year), in what is called 4th. series.

This is the reason why each article that was published (get a try at the link below) didn't have a DATE, and is historically referenced
by the pages that it occupied at every periodic publication (EXACTLY ONE EVERY FOUR MONTHS).

http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/

So, there go any chance to know the exact date of publication. It only can be estimated by quarters of the year.
The dates that pollute the internet with the English versions (translated more than 15 years after the miraculous
year) are IMPOSSIBLE to VERIFY, since EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were
BURNED, gone, vanished!

Now, have in mind that Einstein got a bit of popularity, since 1907, he carefully left behind him every draft and original
copy of submitted paper, as EVERY single scientist pursuing fame do for their future biographers.

Isn't that pretty?

Now way to prove PRIORITY over 1905 theories!

I smell more than a rotten fish concerning the origins of such icon of science.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 12:49:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were
> BURNED, gone, vanished!
You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 12:49:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were
> > BURNED, gone, vanished!
> You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.

IT'S FALSE, LIAR! Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!

Of course you was named "a lying cunt" years ago. A very popular thread. Let me see if I can refresh your memory.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 12:49:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were
> > > BURNED, gone, vanished!
> > You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.
> Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
>

The original manuscript is in the Library of Congress, Kapo piece of shit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29780374

<snip>

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> > > >EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were BURNED, gone, vanished!

> > > You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.

> > Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
> >
> The original manuscript is in the Library of Congress, Kapo piece of shit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29780374

Once again, you prove that the thread "Dono is a lying cunt" is a justified action for the OP.

https://www.loc.gov/item/mm79019596

Albert Einstein papers,
About this Item

Title: Albert Einstein papers
Summary
"Correspondence and manuscripts of writings including FAIR COPY (1943) of Einstein's 1905 paper concerning the
theory of relativity titled "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," and manuscripts of "Einheitliche Feldtheorie" and
"Das Bi-Vektor-Feld." Correspondents include Willy Aron, Constantin Carathéodory, and Sigmund Freud.

Contributor Names
Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955.

FAIR COPY (1943) of Einstein's 1905 paper. Do you get it, imbecile?
A manuscript that he "recreated" the paper submitted to Annalen der Physik in 1943 (38 years LATER), just to fill a void
at the Library of Congress of US, so retarded people from schools and colleges can see it (with prior appointment). Not
for the general public. I'm shure that those who visited the site didn't notice the date (in 1943).

If such a thing existed, you bet your ass that it would be in possession of the University of Jerusalem, and would be available
online, as other papers after 1914.

I've told you that any evidence of his cheating, plagiarism, fudging, reverse mathematics (a-la-Planck), helps from his network
of buddies, the works of Mileva Maric and other stuff were BURNT before he become noticed by others (around 1907).

Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!

If the idiot was so honest (I include influence of others on this definition), he would save most of them for the posterity and his
biographer(s). I'm sure that this would be his dream, as it was common among young physicists seeking fame (a lot of them).

So, we have:

1) No proofs about the date papers were submitted to ADP. Only at which quarter of 1905 they were published.
2) Alleged dates of when they were typed to be sent, that appear ONLY 17 years after, on English version.
3) Not a single draft made by him on that year or before. Nor any compromising letter exchanged with Mileva or collaborators.
4) Unknown role of Michele Angelo Besso, the italian engineer that was his soul brother, his sounding board, as Einstein said.
5) No chances to check dates between Poincaré's work (lectures, paper) and Einstein final versions prior the publishing at ADP.
6) I could think about more facts, but I'm bored with this shit.

Now, concede and shut the fuck up, cretin.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:22:36 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:

<snip>

Time for your cold shower, cranko.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:22:36 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>

> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > > > >EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts, were BURNED, gone, vanished!
>
> > > > You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.
>
> > > Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
> > >
> > The original manuscript is in the Library of Congress, Kapo piece of shit: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29780374
> Once again, you prove that the thread "Dono is a lying cunt" is a justified action for the OP.
>
> https://www.loc.gov/item/mm79019596
>
> Albert Einstein papers,
> About this Item
>
> Title: Albert Einstein papers
> Summary
> "Correspondence and manuscripts of writings including FAIR COPY (1943) of Einstein's 1905 paper concerning the
> theory of relativity titled "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," and manuscripts of "Einheitliche Feldtheorie" and
> "Das Bi-Vektor-Feld." Correspondents include Willy Aron, Constantin Carathéodory, and Sigmund Freud.
>
> Contributor Names
> Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955.
>
> FAIR COPY (1943) of Einstein's 1905 paper. Do you get it, imbecile?
> A manuscript that he "recreated" the paper submitted to Annalen der Physik in 1943 (38 years LATER), just to fill a void
> at the Library of Congress of US, so retarded people from schools and colleges can see it (with prior appointment). Not
> for the general public. I'm shure that those who visited the site didn't notice the date (in 1943).
>
> If such a thing existed, you bet your ass that it would be in possession of the University of Jerusalem, and would be available
> online, as other papers after 1914.
>
> I've told you that any evidence of his cheating, plagiarism, fudging, reverse mathematics (a-la-Planck), helps from his network
> of buddies, the works of Mileva Maric and other stuff were BURNT before he become noticed by others (around 1907).
> Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
> If the idiot was so honest (I include influence of others on this definition), he would save most of them for the posterity and his
> biographer(s). I'm sure that this would be his dream, as it was common among young physicists seeking fame (a lot of them).
>
> So, we have:
>
> 1) No proofs about the date papers were submitted to ADP. Only at which quarter of 1905 they were published.
> 2) Alleged dates of when they were typed to be sent, that appear ONLY 17 years after, on English version.
> 3) Not a single draft made by him on that year or before. Nor any compromising letter exchanged with Mileva or collaborators.
> 4) Unknown role of Michele Angelo Besso, the italian engineer that was his soul brother, his sounding board, as Einstein said.
> 5) No chances to check dates between Poincaré's work (lectures, paper) and Einstein final versions prior the publishing at ADP.
> 6) I could think about more facts, but I'm bored with this shit.
>
> Now, concede and shut the fuck up, cretin.

Here it goes again, cretin.

And be prepared (buy some cream for butthurt) once a post about this interesting link that I've found,
even when it's edited by hoards of relativity worshippers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Voigt_(1887)

And keep in mind these names:

Woldemar Voigt (1887)
Olivier Heaviside (1888)
J.J. Thomson (1889)
George F. Searle (1896)
Antoon Lorentz (1892, 1895)
Joseph Larmor (1897, 1900)
Antoon Lorentz (1899, 1904)
Henri Poincaré (1900, 1905) - June 5, 1905 in particular, (published June 9 1905)
Albert Einstein (1905) - with an ALLEGED date for presentation to ADP in June 30, 1905 (published September 1905)

You'll suffer and retort under the sheer evidence of influences and plagiarism, to the least, by you pagan gay god Aleinstein.

And a little sample, to show you the presence of a great mind in the scenario (not for nothing he and Minkowski worked togheter).

Excerpt from Poincaré's part at Wiki:

"In July 1905 (published in January 1906)[R 34] Poincaré showed in detail how the transformations and electrodynamic equations
are a consequence of the principle of least action; he demonstrated in more detail the group characteristics of the transformation,
which he called Lorentz group, and he showed that the combination x²+y²+z²-t² is invariant. He noticed that the Lorentz transformation
is merely a rotation in four-dimensional space about the origin by introducing ct√−1 as a fourth imaginary coordinate, and he used an
early form of four-vectors. He also formulated the velocity addition formula (4d), which he had already derived in unpublished letters
to Lorentz from May 1905:[R 35]"

See the genesis of Minkowski "space-time" here, three years before Minkowski? And Poincaré went even further than this.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>>>>> EVERY original paper submitted to ADP, along with Einstein's drafts,
>>>>> were BURNED, gone, vanished!
>
>>>> You are lying , kapo, all the drafts are published in the volumes of
>>>> the "Einstein Papers". Keep eating shit, despicable nazi cock-sucker.
>
>>> Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE
>>> CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
>>>
>> The original manuscript is in the Library of Congress, Kapo piece of shit:
>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/29780374
>
> Once again, you prove that the thread "Dono is a lying cunt" is a
> justified action for the OP.
>
> https://www.loc.gov/item/mm79019596
>
> Albert Einstein papers,
> About this Item
>
> Title: Albert Einstein papers
> Summary
> "Correspondence and manuscripts of writings including FAIR COPY (1943) of
> Einstein's 1905 paper concerning the
> theory of relativity titled "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," and
> manuscripts of "Einheitliche Feldtheorie" and
> "Das Bi-Vektor-Feld." Correspondents include Willy Aron, Constantin
> Carathéodory, and Sigmund Freud.
>
> Contributor Names
> Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955.
>
> FAIR COPY (1943) of Einstein's 1905 paper. Do you get it, imbecile?
> A manuscript that he "recreated" the paper submitted to Annalen der
> Physik in 1943 (38 years LATER), just to fill a void
> at the Library of Congress of US, so retarded people from schools and
> colleges can see it (with prior appointment). Not
> for the general public. I'm shure that those who visited the site didn't
> notice the date (in 1943).
>
> If such a thing existed, you bet your ass that it would be in possession
> of the University of Jerusalem, and would be available
> online, as other papers after 1914.
>
> I've told you that any evidence of his cheating, plagiarism, fudging,
> reverse mathematics (a-la-Planck), helps from his network
> of buddies, the works of Mileva Maric and other stuff were BURNT before
> he become noticed by others (around 1907).
>
> Nothing original from 1905 (and previous years) remain! BURNT. THE
> CONDEMNATORY PROOFS WERE BURNT!
>
> If the idiot was so honest (I include influence of others on this
> definition), he would save most of them for the posterity and his
> biographer(s). I'm sure that this would be his dream, as it was common
> among young physicists seeking fame (a lot of them).
>
> So, we have:
>
> 1) No proofs about the date papers were submitted to ADP. Only at which
> quarter of 1905 they were published.
> 2) Alleged dates of when they were typed to be sent, that appear ONLY 17
> years after, on English version.
> 3) Not a single draft made by him on that year or before. Nor any
> compromising letter exchanged with Mileva or collaborators.
> 4) Unknown role of Michele Angelo Besso, the italian engineer that was
> his soul brother, his sounding board, as Einstein said.
> 5) No chances to check dates between Poincaré's work (lectures, paper)
> and Einstein final versions prior the publishing at ADP.
> 6) I could think about more facts, but I'm bored with this shit.
>
> Now, concede and shut the fuck up, cretin.
>
>
>
>

The absence of evidence of a cover-up is the proof of the cover-up!!

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

Am 19.08.2021 um 20:48 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:33:12 PM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As far as I remember, the text of Einstein had the date 30th of June
>> 1905. The text was published later that year in Annalen der Physik.
>>
>> I guess it was November, but I'm not certain.
>>
>> Poincare's text had the date 15th of July 1905 and was printed earlier
>> than Einstein's text.
>>
>> Therefor Poincare could not read Einstein's text, because that was not
>> published in July 1905.
>>
>> TH
>
> The exact date of publications at the Annalen der Physik IS NOT AVAILABLE on the web. Only
> the year, volume and pages (from-to). I tried to find the exact date of each volume but, magically, they
> are gone forever. Only infinite references to the "1905 annus mirabilis" remain.

I think, it was late in 1905, but do not know the exact date neither.

AFAIK it was in december.

There was a discussion baout this, because there was a huge gap between
the date, when einstein gave his article to the publisher and when it
actually was published.

In any case Poincare's text was finished and given to his publisher,
before Einstein's text was printed.

The difference between finishing dates was actually small, only about
two weeks.

> 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 mniddle 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.

TH
....

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:18:14 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth :
>
> Antoon Lorentz (1892, 1895)
> Joseph Larmor (1897, 1900)
> Antoon Lorentz (1899, 1904)
> Henri Poincaré (1900, 1905) - June 5, 1905 in particular, (published June 9 1905)
> Albert Einstein (1905) -

Some of the brightest physicists of the 20th century worked on developing the theory of relativity, yet a delusional imbecile named Richard Hertz thinks he can "disprove" it by posting garbage in a forum reserved for cranks. Ah, the irony.

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).

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-7, rabid dog Richard Hertz barked:

> 1) As I wrote in the OP of this thread, Einstein plagiarized ideas and mass concepts from Lorentz 1904, about the MASS INCREASE

Cretin, there is no "mass increase" in modern relativity. Keep on barking.

<rest of the rabid dog's barking snipped>

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 9:56:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-7, rabid dog Richard Hertz barked:
> > 1) As I wrote in the OP of this thread, Einstein plagiarized ideas and mass concepts from Lorentz 1904, about the MASS INCREASE
> Cretin, there is no "mass increase" in modern relativity. Keep on barking..
>
> <rest of the rabid dog's barking snipped>

Half of retarded as you, by now, thanks to the efforts of people like Okun, who invested a decade or more to tell to morons (like you)
that it's impossible that mass can't increase with motion, but moment can.

Your snipping of my development extending the SR paper with the dm = L/V² last shitting for 1905 has inspired me to post it
in a separate thread. Thanks, Dono!

And beware of that green and stinky liquid that comes out of your fucking mouth. It may be a sign of decomposition of your
internal organs due to the HATE that makes your inside burn!

Am 21.08.2021 um 02:12 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> 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:

You seemingly want to argue, that Einstein had not written, what he in
fact had (as can be seen in my quote).

I did not say, that he derived the relation correctly, but only, that
such an equation was printed in that paper.

It is in a way a form of E=mc², but slightly different.

That was actually all, what I wanted to say about that equation.

> 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).

Unfortunately I still have not read anything from Lorentz, but actually
believe your arguments are correct.

Only I do not want to write any comments about this subject, unless I
have read something from him.

....

TH

Am 13.08.2021 um 06:17 schrieb JanPB:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:15:37 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:47:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Sure, but the editorial standards of science journals of the day were not the same. I recommend a visit to
>>> the nearest university science library. Just leaf through a decade's worth of, say, Annalen der Physik, say,
>>> between 1900 and 1910. You'll see papers like Einstein's ALL OVER the place: NOT quoting the original
>>> inspiration. It was just the standard back then. Einstein's paper was not at all exceptional in its NOT
>>> listing any references: it was very common back then, just look over those old journals.
>> From:
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095352/
>>
>> I quote:
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> "The rise of the science periodical in the nineteenth century
>>
>> From around 100 titles worldwide at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the number of science
>> periodicals grew to an estimated 10000 by the end, facilitating in the process an exponential growth
>> in popular and professional forms of science."
>
> My point remains: around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
> common today.
>
>> And it doesn't matter. The young Einstein also had access to the Polytechnic library and the vast collection of
>> journals, books and technical papers exactly meters far away from where is was working 9x6 hours a week (the
>> Patent Office, a first class place). If you had know something about the development of the industrial world since
>> mid XIX century, you would have know that PATENTS was something of incredibly complex, intricate processes
>> by then and, due the international reach of consequences, it was mandatory for Patent Offices on developed countries
>> to have a COPY of any conceivable patent register, as well as a vast technical library to assist in the process of
>> priorities. More lawyers and clerks were working on this matter than the whole world of scientists, by then.
>
> Nevertheless, again, around the year 1900 scientific papers did not quote references as much as it is
> common today.

Einstein didn't quote anything. There are actually zero references to
used materials in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

He mentioned a few names, like Newton, Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz, but
not a single paper.

He also 'forgot' to mention Poincaré and Minkowski, even if there were
certainly influences.

This would be well below current standards, but didn't match early 20th
century standards neither.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Einstein didn't quote anything. There are actually zero references to
> used materials in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
> He mentioned a few names, like Newton, Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz, but
> not a single paper.
> He also 'forgot' to mention Poincaré and Minkowski, even if there were
> certainly influences.
> This would be well below current standards, but didn't match early 20th
> century standards neither.

Trump's Second Coming -

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you let me in!"