As currently defined, these three "mechanisms" in propositions or
statements are:

SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick
someone or a false or untrue argument.
Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.

FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
to be better than it really is.

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

Some examples in relativity:

1) The derivation of m=E/c² in the 1905 paper "“Does the Inertia of a body
depend upon its energy content?” is based on a circular argument. The
paper generated controversies almost since the publication, being Max
Planck who questioned this defect, by which the paper should have been
never published.

Literal quotes:
"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 (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
..........
"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 (ξ, η, ζ)
respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"

E₀ = E₁ + L
H₀ = H₁ + γ . L

Here introduce the C.A. that E₁ = E₀ - L, at the beginning. It's being
assumed that the energy of light L was drawn from the energy E₀ of the
body at rest, before the light was turned on.

With these two equations, Einstein derived that an ABSOLUTE change of
energy happened between two RELATIVE sights of resting and moving
frames of reference, getting:

H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²

To finally conclude:

"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 The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body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 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured
in ergs, and the mass in grammes."

The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the
energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light was turned on.
He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that

E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L

and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact
that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.

CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the
transformation of mass into energy is introduced (disguised) as
hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.

2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5

The use of these formulae is fallacious, after it was introduced in Page 1
the following conjectures/postulates:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."

Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but,
in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly forbidding any
velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):

V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)

This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.

The fallacy alone should be enough to discard any further development
in the paper as INVALID, remaining others derivations for geometrical
Lorentz transforms like from Poincaré. Nothing else, if the case of
discarding the ether would be continued by any other person.

3) On the 1911 paper, a SOPHISM is used to obtain gravitational blue
shifting of light (1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the
Propagation of Light").

In "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", SOPHISTRY is used to derive
the equation (1), by using systems S₁ and S₂ (at an height h):

**** Literal quote:

"We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from
S₂ to S₁ ......... Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation
arriving at S₁ does not possess the energy E₂, but a greater energy E₁,
which is related to E₂; to a first approximation, by the equation:
(1) E₁ = E₂ . (1 + v/c) = E₂ . (1 + g.h/c²)

By our ASSUMPTION exactly the same relation holds if the same
process takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is
provided with a gravitational field. In this case we may replace
g.h by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S₂, if the ARBITRARY
CONSTANT of Φ in S₁ is set to zero. We then have the equation:

(1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂ . /c²

**** End of quote.

This excerpt contain sophistry and fallacies, and pushes the reader to
accept that energy from S₂ increments by falling down to S₁, which has
a motion v = g.h/c relative to a reference K₀.

Not only this, but using (without mention it, Planck's E = h.f), an equation
(2a) is derived in "§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational
Field"

(2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)

which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.

CONCLUSION ON 3): The abundant use of sophistry, fallacies and
gobbledygook in the 1911 paper is untenable, and these conclusions
as well as the variable speed of light due to gravity should be discarded.

CORRECTIONS

Equations that contain a typo have this correct value:

In 1) it should be E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L/c²

In 3) it should be (1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂ .Φ/c²

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz nannled:

> (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
>
No, it isn't, imbecile. One uses the complete Schwarzschild expression in order to explain the GPS functionality.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As currently defined, these three "mechanisms" in propositions or
> statements are:
>
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick
> someone or a false or untrue argument.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is.
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>
> Some examples in relativity:
>
> 1) The derivation of m=E/c² in the 1905 paper "“Does the Inertia of a body
> depend upon its energy content?” is based on a circular argument. The
> paper generated controversies almost since the publication, being Max
> Planck who questioned this defect, by which the paper should have been
> never published.

I'll leave it to the others to discuss this.

> 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
> precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

This has been raised here many, many times by amateur relativity opponents.
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5

There is nothing wrong with those formulas. As is common, hobbyists who
did not spend the time needed to learn the subject get "stuck" on the mere
formal similarity of certain formulas and from that they
infer all sorts of weird things (the classic example is attempting to claim
Einstein "stole" a formula from Voigt, etc. etc. For some reason they never
claim that Schwarzschild "stole" a formula from Laplace. But I digress.)

> The use of these formulae is fallacious, after it was introduced in Page 1
> the following conjectures/postulates:
>
> "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
> the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
> introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
> the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body."

That's irrelevant in the context of the formulas under discussion. The
presence of "c + v" and "c - v" comes from mere adding/subtracting
velocity vectors within a single coordinate system. This is how adding
velocity vectors works in general.

> Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but,
> in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly forbidding any
> velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
>
> V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)

You are confused here. The so-called "relativistic velocity addition" refers
specifically to adding two velocities as measured by two (usually different)
observers. OTOH the formulas on page 5 simply count certain velocities
within a single coordinate system (observer).

> This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.

Yes but it's a different thing.

> The fallacy alone should be enough to discard any further development

There is no fallacy here.

> in the paper as INVALID,

Just who do you think you are?!! Do you think that an error THIS OBVIOUS
and THIS EASY would not have been noticed even BEFORE the paper was
published?? The editors of Annalen der Physik would have rejected the paper
just on the basis of this error alone, within hours, if it was real.

Why do you forever assume that everyone who ever lived since 1905
is an idiot? What a bizarre brain you have.

> 3) On the 1911 paper, a SOPHISM is used to obtain gravitational blue
> shifting of light (1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the
> Propagation of Light").

Again, the mistakes you've just made in 2) do not bode well for 3),
so I'll stop here for now.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> As currently defined, these three "mechanisms" in propositions or
> statements are:
>
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick
> someone or a false or untrue argument.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a
> falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is.
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic,
> begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the
> conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>
> Some examples in relativity:
>
> 1) The derivation of m=E/c² in the 1905 paper "“Does the Inertia of a body
> depend upon its energy content?” is based on a circular argument. The
> paper generated controversies almost since the publication, being Max
> Planck who questioned this defect, by which the paper should have been
> never published.
>
> Literal quotes:
> "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 (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
> .........
> "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 (ξ, η, ζ)
> respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"
>
> E₀ = E₁ + L
> H₀ = H₁ + γ . L
>
> Here introduce the C.A. that E₁ = E₀ - L, at the beginning. It's being
> assumed that the energy of light L was drawn from the energy E₀ of the
> body at rest, before the light was turned on.
>
> With these two equations, Einstein derived that an ABSOLUTE change of
> energy happened between two RELATIVE sights of resting and moving
> frames of reference, getting:
>
> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²
>
> To finally conclude:
>
> "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 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured
> in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
>
> The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the
> energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light was turned on.
> He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that
>
> E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L
>
> and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact
> that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.
>
> CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the
> transformation of mass into energy is introduced (disguised) as
> hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.

Not so. There is no circularity here. What he showed is that there is a
CHANGE in mass that is associated with the energy released in the light.
There is no other principle invoked other than conservation of energy. One
can then reasonably infer that there is energy content associated with
mass, and that taking the mass to zero would set that energy scale to zero
as well. You don’t have to assume the absolute scale in order to argue the
change.

Furthermore, you are one of many amateurs and hacks who make the mistake of
claiming that Einstein is presenting a PROOF of E=mc^2 in this paper. He is
not. There are no proofs of scientific hypotheses; there are only
experimental validations. What he showed is that IF special relativity is
correct (which would require experimental validation, which in turn has
happened since), then E=mc^2 follows as an equally likely hypothesis. No
proof offered. Just implication.

>
> 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
> precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5
>
> The use of these formulae is fallacious, after it was introduced in Page 1
> the following conjectures/postulates:
>
> "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
> the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
> introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
> the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body."
>
> Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but,
> in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly forbidding any
> velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
>
> V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)
>
> This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.

No, that’s not what is says at all, and again this is a common foolishness
conducted by amateurs and hacks, to argue that “if there is no speed higher
than c, then I should NEVER SEE in ANY expression a quantity that
numerically sums to a speed larger than c.” This is of course idiotic, and
points to the fact that the person looking at the algebraic expression
cannot ascribe any physical content to the terms in the expression.

In the expression v’ = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), the quantity v’ is the measurable
speed of an object as observed in the primed frame, where v is its
measurable velocity in the unprimed frame.

On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator
does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything in any frame. It is
purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.

There is no physics assertion anywhere that says you may not form an
algebraic combination of speeds that might exceed c, under any
circumstances.

Since the only things you’ve illustrated here is not logical fallacies in a
1911 paper but your own inability to parse simple physics ideas and then
blame that inability on someone else, why do you think all this verbiage
should be treated seriously?

>
> The fallacy alone should be enough to discard any further development
> in the paper as INVALID, remaining others derivations for geometrical
> Lorentz transforms like from Poincaré. Nothing else, if the case of
> discarding the ether would be continued by any other person.
>
>
> 3) On the 1911 paper, a SOPHISM is used to obtain gravitational blue
> shifting of light (1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the
> Propagation of Light").
>
> In "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", SOPHISTRY is used to derive
> the equation (1), by using systems S₁ and S₂ (at an height h):
>
> **** Literal quote:
>
> "We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from
> S₂ to S₁ ......... Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation
> arriving at S₁ does not possess the energy E₂, but a greater energy E₁,
> which is related to E₂; to a first approximation, by the equation:
>
> (1) E₁ = E₂ . (1 + v/c) = E₂ . (1 + g.h/c²)
>
> By our ASSUMPTION exactly the same relation holds if the same
> process takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is
> provided with a gravitational field. In this case we may replace
> g.h by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S₂, if the ARBITRARY
> CONSTANT of Φ in S₁ is set to zero. We then have the equation:
>
> (1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂ . /c²
>
> **** End of quote.
>
> This excerpt contain sophistry and fallacies, and pushes the reader to
> accept that energy from S₂ increments by falling down to S₁, which has
> a motion v = g.h/c relative to a reference K₀.
>
> Not only this, but using (without mention it, Planck's E = h.f), an equation
> (2a) is derived in "§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational
> Field"
>
> (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
>
> CONCLUSION ON 3): The abundant use of sophistry, fallacies and
> gobbledygook in the 1911 paper is untenable, and these conclusions
> as well as the variable speed of light due to gravity should be discarded.
>
>
>
>
>

MUDRAK'S 2015 PAPER SHOWS THAT YOU ARE A STUPID LIAR.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
> >
> > which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> > 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> > shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
> >
> No, it isn't, imbecile. One uses the complete Schwarzschild expression in order to explain the GPS functionality.

Einstein 1911 (Gravitational effect, counting from Earth's surface): f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)

Mudrak 2015 (Gravitational effect, counting from Earth's center): f₁ = f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c² - J₂/2) ≈ f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c²)

Both formulae are the same, except for the difference that in 1911 ground level was used a zero reference for height.

Using any of them gives a gravitational time dilation of 47.17 μsec/day, compared to a similar clock on ground station.

The full expression used by Mudrak in 2015 is, accounting SR and GR, and for GALILEO GNSS is:

f₁ = f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c² - J₂/2 - Φ/2c² - a².Ωₑ²/2c²) ≈ f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c² - Φ/2c²) -----> Account for 40.8 μsec/day (check it)

Mudrak's paper is criticizing Galileo's GNSS for not using pre-launch corrections (38.5 μsec/day is for GPS).

There you have 1905 SR and 1911 paper. Einstein didn't include SR because he didn't imagine S₂ system
(the light-generator) orbiting Earth. For him, S₂ was FLOATING ABOVE HIS HEAD at height h.
What a scientist, isn't it? He ALSO proposed LEVITATION. I wonder why he didn't suggest how to counteract GRAVITY.

That would have made him truly IMMORTAL. Think about it: his thought experiment was inferring anti-gravity.

*********

And your pathetic use of "Dono." with a DOT instead of "Dono" to prevent searches for your past idiocies here is a prove
that you are a fake and a deceiver.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 12:47:13 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz kept digging himself:

> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
> > >
> > > which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> > > 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> > > shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
> > >
> > No, it isn't, imbecile. One uses the complete Schwarzschild expression in order to explain the GPS functionality.
> Einstein 1911 (Gravitational effect, counting from Earth's surface): f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)

> The full expression used by Mudrak in 2015 is, accounting SR and GR, and for GALILEO GNSS is:
> f₁ = f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c² - J₂/2 - Φ/2c² - a².Ωₑ²/2c²) ≈ f₂ . (1 + ΔΦ/c² - Φ/2c²) -----> Account for 40.8 μsec/day (check it)

So, contrary to your persistent lying, the formulas are not the same. Keep digging yourself.

On Monday, 4 October 2021 at 18:40:52 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:42:50 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz nannled:
> > (2a) f₁ = f₂ . (1 + Φ/c²)
> >
> > which is STILL USED on papers, documents and publicity about GPS
> > 110 years AFTER, without modifications, to explain the 45 μsec/day
> > shift due to gravitational frequency shift in GPS atomic clocks.
> >
> No, it isn't, imbecile. One uses the complete Schwarzschild expression in order to explain the GPS functionality.

One uses, another doesn't; and in the meantime GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:58:58 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
> > precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
> > Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
> >
> > tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5

JanPB wrote:
> This has been raised here many, many times by amateur relativity opponents. There is nothing wrong with those formulas. As is
> common, hobbyists who did not spend the time needed to learn the subject get "stuck" on the mere formal similarity of certain
> formulas and from that they infer all sorts of weird things (the classic example is attempting to claim Einstein "stole" a formula
> from Voigt, etc. etc. For some reason they never claim that Schwarzschild "stole" a formula from Laplace. But I digress.)

Bodkin wrote:
> On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
> in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.

JanPB and Bodkin agree: This is NOT CHEATING. It's just that I don't understand. THE FORMULAE ARE RIGHT.
I'm the IDIOT who think it's wrong while millions of persons agreed with the formulae for 115 years. It's OK for Einstein
to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his relativity.. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.

I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.

*********************

> > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,
> > and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
> > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

JanPB wrote:
> That's irrelevant in the context of the formulas under discussion. The presence of "c + v" and "c - v" comes from mere adding/subtracting
> velocity vectors within a single coordinate system. This is how adding velocity vectors works in general.

Bodkin wrote:
> On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
> in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.

************************

> > Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but, in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly
> > forbidding any velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
> >
> > V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)

JanPB wrote:
> You are confused here. The so-called "relativistic velocity addition" refers specifically to adding two velocities as measured by two
> (usually different) observers. OTOH the formulas on page 5 simply count certain velocities within a single coordinate system (observer).

Bodkin wrote:
> In the expression v’ = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), the quantity v’ is the measurable speed of an object as observed in the primed frame,
> where v is its measurable velocity in the unprimed frame.

****************

> > This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.

JanPB wrote: "Yes but it's a different thing."

Bodkin wrote: "There is no physics assertion anywhere that says you may not form an algebraic combination of speeds
that might exceed c, under any circumstances."

*****************

CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend Einstein's manipulations (fallacies) but DISAGREE
when they write about the correct interpretation of Einstein's developments in SR, like addition of velocities.

Obviously, any of them interpret SR under their own preconceptions. I don't imagine the outcome of a discussion about GR.

And, NONE proved me wrong. Either "straw man" or "ad-hominem attack" fallacies are used to divert the subject.
Both are incoherent on their own, but together they get a high correlation. Interesting paradox.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:18:21 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

Bodkin, I replied most of your post within my reply to JanPB. This part is what was left:

<snip>

> > H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²
> >
> > The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light
> > was turned on. He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that
> >
> > E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L
> >
> > and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.
> >
> > CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the transformation of mass into energy is introduced
> > (disguised) as hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.

> Not so. There is no circularity here.
> What he showed is that there is a CHANGE in mass that is associated with the energy released in the light.

> There is no other principle invoked other than conservation of energy. One can then REASONABLY INFER that there is energy content
> associated with mass, and that taking the mass to zero would set that energy scale to zero as well. You don’t have to assume the
> absolute scale in order to argue the change.

Bodkin, do you EVER READ WHAT YOU WROTE before posting? So, to justify Einstein, you REASONABLY INFER what was in his mind?
Are you insane? This is another sophism, Supreme Thinker. You can't infer without any sustainable proof of your inference!

> Furthermore, you are one of many amateurs and hacks who make the mistake of claiming that Einstein is presenting a PROOF
> of E=mc^2 in this paper. He is not.

Well, now you are taking me for an IDIOT that can buy your smelly fish. He asserted that a relationship between matter and energy
exists by connecting his poor attempt with lost mass being L/c². He also made calculations extending this to 1 gramme of matter,
and SUGESTS, in the final part of his paper:

"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 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."

NOTE: Clearly states that changes in mass and energy ARE RELATED by the expression M = L/c². Are you blind?

"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."

NOTE: Clearly show his IGNORANCE on the nascent field of radioactivity. He didn't even had a clue about what an atom was or what
Alpha and Beta radiation were (discovered by Rutherford between 1899 and 1902, along with their decays).

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

NOTE: Here, clearly states that mass can be teleported as energy between two bodies. I WONDER: why there is so much ignorance
between relativists, who live with borrowed narratives, either from books, papers or films OR (as ancient tribes) by the "mouth to ear"
method to share information across people and ages.

Bodkin, even your eloquent prose and rhetoric can't help you from the truth: Relativity was built with fallacies upon fallacies, and is false.

LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Literal quotes:
"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 (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
..........
"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 (ξ, η, ζ)
respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"

E₀ = E₁ + L
H₀ = H₁ + γ . L

Applying L.C.E. to system (x, y, z), NOT KNOWING THAT E = mc² is going to be obtained at the end of the paper:

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Kᵢ = Uᵢ = 0 ------------------ Check!
Kₑ = Uₑ = 0 ---------------- Check!

Applying L.C.E. to system (x, y, z), BUT KNOWING A PRIORI THAT E = mc² is going to be obtained at the end of the paper:

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Kᵢ = 0; Uᵢ = Mₒ.c² ----------------------------------- Check!
Kₑ = 0; Uₑ = (Mₒ - L/c²).c² + L ---------------- Check!

See how a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii) works?

Now, I dare ANYONE to prove me WRONG!

Einstein pulled dM = L/c² from his ASS, after playing a while with this equation from his "electrodynamics" paper (page 22):

Literal quote:

"As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to
the energy of motion W of the electron. Bearing in mind that during the whole process of motion
which we are considering, the first of the equations (A) applies, we therefore obtain

W = mc² . [ 1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1 ]"

End quote:

AS SIMPLE AS THAT. READ IT VERY WELL, IT'S HISTORY!

On 10/4/2021 4:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:58:58 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
>>> precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
>>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
>>>
>>> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5
>
> JanPB wrote:
>> This has been raised here many, many times by amateur relativity opponents. There is nothing wrong with those formulas. As is
>> common, hobbyists who did not spend the time needed to learn the subject get "stuck" on the mere formal similarity of certain
>> formulas and from that they infer all sorts of weird things (the classic example is attempting to claim Einstein "stole" a formula
>> from Voigt, etc. etc. For some reason they never claim that Schwarzschild "stole" a formula from Laplace. But I digress.)
>
> Bodkin wrote:
>> On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
>> in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.
>
> JanPB and Bodkin agree: This is NOT CHEATING. It's just that I don't understand. THE FORMULAE ARE RIGHT.
> I'm the IDIOT who think it's wrong while millions of persons agreed with the formulae for 115 years. It's OK for Einstein
> to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his relativity. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.

Nope.

If there's a term in there c^2-v^2, that expression can be factored as
(c+v)*(c-v). Just because you CAN factor it that way doesn't mean
that the factors c+v and c-v actually mean anything.

For example, consider the Pythagorean Theorem and a right triangle with
the hypotenuse of length c and one side length b. Say we want to find
the length of the unknown side a, if we are given values for b and c.
How do we find the value? Well, if a^2+b^2=c^2, then a^2 = c^2 - b^2.
Then take the square root and we have a.

Notice also, there is a term c^2-b^2. It so happens that we can factor
c^2-b^2 to (c+b)*(c-b). What are the relevances of the lengths c+b and
c-b in this problem. NONE! Just because you CAN factor that term
doesn't mean you SHOULD, or that it has any meaning whatsoever. For that
problem you find the answer by taking the square root of (c^2-b^2), not
by factoring it.
>
> I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.

Really? Stockholm Syndrome? Who has captured and imprisoned whom?

> CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend Einstein's manipulations (fallacies) but DISAGREE
> when they write about the correct interpretation of Einstein's developments in SR, like addition of velocities.

Nope. As I just showed, there is no need for the factors to have any
meaning of their own. You are flailing desperately, trying desperately
to find anything and everything to attack SR and Einstein. It's your
obsession to do so.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:30:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > It's OK for Einstein to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his relativity. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.

> Nope.
>
> If there's a term in there c^2-v^2, that expression can be factored as (c+v)*(c-v). Just because you CAN factor it that way doesn't mean
> that the factors c+v and c-v actually mean anything.
>
> For example, consider the Pythagorean Theorem and a right triangle with the hypotenuse of length c and one side length b. Say we want
> to find the length of the unknown side a, if we are given values for b and c.
> How do we find the value? Well, if a^2+b^2=c^2, then a^2 = c^2 - b^2. Then take the square root and we have a.

Pythagorean Theorem, Moroney? Really? Around 540 BC?

I wonder how come you didn't go back to 1900 BC (1200 years before Phytagoras), to the Old Babylonian Empire.
The Tell Dhibayi tablet was one of about 500 tablets found near Baghdad by archaeologists in 1962, and contain
calculations based on right angles, square roots and what Pythagoras was to "publish" 1200 years after.
Read about it here (Yale tablet YBC 7289):

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_Pythagoras/

Maybe Einstein plagiarized them too, with his further explanations using Phytagoras, in the decade after 1905. Still used, by the way.

> Notice also, there is a term c^2-b^2. It so happens that we can factor c^2-b^2 to (c+b)*(c-b). What are the relevances of the lengths
> c+b and c-b in this problem. NONE! Just because you CAN factor that term doesn't mean you SHOULD, or that it has any meaning
> whatsoever. For that problem you find the answer by taking the square root of (c^2-b^2), not by factoring it.

Now you derailed badly, Moroney. Check your current mental health with your shrink. You have ups and downs, like in this case.

> > I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.

> Really? Stockholm Syndrome? Who has captured and imprisoned whom?

The cult of relativity, Moroney, the CULT! Religious fanatics are dangerous if you contradict their belief.

> > CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend Einstein's manipulations (fallacies) but DISAGREE
> > when they write about the correct interpretation of Einstein's developments in SR, like addition of velocities.

> Nope. As I just showed, there is no need for the factors to have any meaning of their own. You are flailing desperately, trying desperately
> to find anything and everything to attack SR and Einstein. It's your obsession to do so.

“Potato, Potato”. Po-tay-toh, Po-tah-toh, Moroney. Your obsession to remark my obsession is a circular behavior, and we are not going
to reach any common ground if you persist thinking in that way. Your despair to defend relativity and Einstein for decades is no match
with my poor attempts to show how wrong it is and how dirty Einstein was. We can keep this going forever if you don't regain reason.

Now try with my post about circular reasoning and the principle of conservation of energy. DON'T CHICKEN OUT!

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:32:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz realized he;s an imbecile:
>. It's just that I don't understand. THE FORMULAE ARE RIGHT.
> I'm the IDIOT who think it's wrong while millions of persons agreed with the formulae for 115 years. It's OK for Einstein to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v.

IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper. No wonder that the physics professors sighed a sigh of relief when the 17 year old imbecile jewish kapo decided to switch from physics to EE. You were an imbecile at 17, you are an imbecile at 67 and you will die an imbecile.

On 10/4/2021 7:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:30:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> It's OK for Einstein to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his relativity. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> If there's a term in there c^2-v^2, that expression can be factored as (c+v)*(c-v). Just because you CAN factor it that way doesn't mean
>> that the factors c+v and c-v actually mean anything.
>>
>> For example, consider the Pythagorean Theorem and a right triangle with the hypotenuse of length c and one side length b. Say we want
>> to find the length of the unknown side a, if we are given values for b and c.
>> How do we find the value? Well, if a^2+b^2=c^2, then a^2 = c^2 - b^2. Then take the square root and we have a.
>
> Pythagorean Theorem, Moroney? Really? Around 540 BC?

Do try to keep up. The Pythagorean Theorem example is an example of a
problem with a (c^2-b^2) term where the factors of (c^2-b^2), which are
(c+b) and (c-b), are MEANINGLESS when finding the solution. Neither
term represents ANYTHING. Instead, to find a, you don't factor that
(c^2-b^2) expression, you take the square root of it.

If you still foolishly insist that the (c+v) term is meaningful, tell us
WHAT has the speed (c+v)? Actual speed, not a closing speed or anything
irrelevant.

<snip evasive babble>

> Now you derailed badly, Moroney. Check your current mental health with your shrink. You have ups and downs, like in this case.

I see you have no answer other than insults.

>>> I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.
>
>> Really? Stockholm Syndrome? Who has captured and imprisoned whom?
>
> The cult of relativity, Moroney, the CULT! Religious fanatics are dangerous if you contradict their belief.

> “Potato, Potato”. Po-tay-toh, Po-tah-toh, Moroney. Your obsession to remark my obsession is a circular behavior,

No, it is obvious to anyone reading your posts it is an idée fixe, an
obsession. In the sentence where you responded to your 'Stockholm
Syndrome' foolishness, you managed to show crank behavior three times in
two sentences, calling science a cult and religion.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:08:43 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Moroney, talking about evasive babble, are you evading to reply to my challenge about conservation of energy?

Are you chickening out, Moroney?

And Dono. , Bodkin or JanPB? Anyone that refute me? You can't, isn't it?

Think that the paper had only 2 and 1/2 pages, where he laughed at all of you, relativists.

Here goes again. Disprove me.

**************************************************************************************

LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Literal quotes:
"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 (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
..........
"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 (ξ, η, ζ)
respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"

E₀ = E₁ + L
H₀ = H₁ + γ . L

Applying L.C.E. to system (x, y, z), NOT KNOWING THAT E = mc² is going to be obtained at the end of the paper:

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Kᵢ = Uᵢ = 0 ------------------ Check!
Kₑ = Uₑ = 0 ---------------- Check!

Applying L.C.E. to system (x, y, z), BUT KNOWING A PRIORI THAT E = mc² is going to be obtained at the end of the paper:

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Kᵢ = 0; Uᵢ = Mₒ.c² ----------------------------------- Check!
Kₑ = 0; Uₑ = (Mₒ - L/c²).c² + L ---------------- Check!

See how a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii) works?

Now, I dare ANYONE to prove me WRONG!

Einstein pulled dM = L/c² from his ASS, after playing a while with this equation from his "electrodynamics" paper (page 22):

Literal quote:

"As the electron is to be slowly accelerated, and consequently may not give off any energy in the
form of radiation, the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to
the energy of motion W of the electron. Bearing in mind that during the whole process of motion
which we are considering, the first of the equations (A) applies, we therefore obtain

W = mc² . [ 1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1 ]"

End quote:

AS SIMPLE AS THAT. READ IT VERY WELL, IT'S HISTORY!
********************************************

On 10/4/2021 8:20 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:08:43 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Moroney, talking about evasive babble, are you evading to reply to my challenge about conservation of energy?

I can't find the word 'conservation' in any of your posts I searched.

Regardless, I'll reply to what I wish to reply to and not reply to the rest.
>
> Are you chickening out, Moroney?

Don't try to bully me around.

> Here goes again. Disprove me.

OK here it is.

I will if I feel like it and have time.

On 05-Oct-21 2:42 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As currently defined, these three "mechanisms" in propositions or
> statements are:
>
> SOPHISTRY: The deliberate use of a false argument with the intent to trick
> someone or a false or untrue argument.
> Unsound or misleading but clever, plausible, and subtle argument or reasoning.
>
> FALLACY: A fallacy is a misleading argument or belief based on a falsehood. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing
> to be better than it really is.
>
> CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (Petitio Principii): In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal
> fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>
> Some examples in relativity:
>
> 1) The derivation of m=E/c² in the 1905 paper "“Does the Inertia of a body
> depend upon its energy content?” is based on a circular argument. The
> paper generated controversies almost since the publication, being Max
> Planck who questioned this defect, by which the paper should have been
> never published.
>
> Literal quotes:
> "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 (ξ, η, ζ) moving as above with the velocity v, be H₀."
> .........
> "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 (ξ, η, ζ)
> respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain"
>
> E₀ = E₁ + L
> H₀ = H₁ + γ . L
>
> Here introduce the C.A. that E₁ = E₀ - L, at the beginning. It's being
> assumed that the energy of light L was drawn from the energy E₀ of the
> body at rest, before the light was turned on.

It's just applying the then well established law of conservation of
energy. If you take issue with that law, then you have bigger problems
than E=mc^2.

Sylvia.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:46:30 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/4/2021 8:20 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:08:43 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Moroney, talking about evasive babble, are you evading to reply to my challenge about conservation of energy?
> I can't find the word 'conservation' in any of your posts I searched.
>
> Regardless, I'll reply to what I wish to reply to and not reply to the rest.
> >
> > Are you chickening out, Moroney?
> Don't try to bully me around.
> > Here goes again. Disprove me.
> OK here it is.
>
> I will if I feel like it and have time.

OK, Moroney. I give you 5 years, but don't feel bullied. It's just a challenge and I'm an IDIOT easy to disprove, isn't it?
After all, you accused me of finding 400 errors on SR. I just post one and you collapse?

Do as you feel, but it seems to me that such challenge is insurmountable for you or anybody else here, there or anywhere.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> It's just applying the then well established law of conservation of
> energy. If you take issue with that law, then you have bigger problems than E=mc^2.

Sylvia, if it's so simple for you, refute my post where I apply the well established law of conservation of energy.

The circular reasoning in the 1905 paper is clearly explained by me.

Please, use your knowledge to refute my assertion that he introduced as hypothesis what was trying to derive
in such simple, elementary paper.

I'm sure you will not able to refute my analysis, because my claim is absolutely true. Planck saw this by 1906.

Einstein NEVER EVER could solve this fallacy and present the development under serious basis. He tried 6 times,
until he abandoned it by 1942. And what I'm saying is supported by any historian of science who address this topic.

E = mc² remains theoretically unproven, within the applicability of v << c. Much less for any other velocity.

So, E = mc² is a CONVENTION adopted by consensus within the science community. If c = 1, gives the convenient
expression E = m, not any other convention like E = 3/4.m or worse ( like E = √2 . m).

If you are so sure that I'm wrong, the challenge is in my former post.

On 05-Oct-21 12:10 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It's just applying the then well established law of conservation of
>> energy. If you take issue with that law, then you have bigger problems than E=mc^2.
>
> Sylvia, if it's so simple for you, refute my post where I apply the well established law of conservation of energy.
>
> The circular reasoning in the 1905 paper is clearly explained by me.
>
> Please, use your knowledge to refute my assertion that he introduced as hypothesis what was trying to derive
> in such simple, elementary paper.

That claim is so vague as to be unfalsifiable.

Sylvia.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.

RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used by the cretin that you adore.

It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:

Literal excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
............
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA

⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”

let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration
the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that

tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of literal excerpt

Now, read this with much care, Dono:

1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?

2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body."
In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c - v) but only c.

3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body."
In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c + v) but only c.

4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:

tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c

and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible, because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.

No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.

He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?

Einstein's SR is a lame copy of Lorentz SR, without the ether. It's a variation of Poincaré SR. A plagiarism through and through.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 10:32:40 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> That claim is so vague as to be unfalsifiable.
>
> Sylvia.

I didn't expect less.

I don't know how do you qualify the 2 and 1/2 pages 1905 paper: vague, exact, in between? May I know?

On 10/4/2021 8:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:46:30 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/4/2021 8:20 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:08:43 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Moroney, talking about evasive babble, are you evading to reply to my challenge about conservation of energy?
>> I can't find the word 'conservation' in any of your posts I searched.
>>
>> Regardless, I'll reply to what I wish to reply to and not reply to the rest.
>>>
>>> Are you chickening out, Moroney?
>> Don't try to bully me around.
>>> Here goes again. Disprove me.
>> OK here it is.
>>
>> I will if I feel like it and have time.
>
> OK, Moroney. I give you 5 years, but don't feel bullied. It's just a challenge and I'm an IDIOT easy to disprove, isn't it?
> After all, you accused me of finding 400 errors on SR. I just post one and you collapse?
>
> Do as you feel, but it seems to me that such challenge is insurmountable for you or anybody else here, there or anywhere.
>

I'm going to ignore your juvenile taunting.

But while you wait, why not address the fact that just because c^2-v^2
CAN be factored producing a "c+v" doesn't mean it SHOULD be, or that the
c+v means anything. Review the Pythagorean example.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 6:45:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz admitted he's retarded:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
> RETARDED suits me better
Retarded is too mild, you should accept that you are an imbecile. You were born this way and you will die this way