If you don't like revisions of historic papers, please stop reading.

This post is about fallacies and circular reasoning present in the 1905
paper "Does the Inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”.

It is proven (IMO) that Einstein NEVER obtained a direct derivation for the
formula m=E/c² that appear as a conclusion of the paper. He tried six
more times until he gave up in 1942. Yet, the approximation was accepted
and generalized for any velocity, even when it's valid for v << c.

The circular argument is evident at plain sight, and Planck noticed this
by 1906, introducing some corrections to include momentum in 1907.

Perhaps, in that epoch, imagining to obtain velocities higher than
30,000 Km/sec (v/c > 0.1) was unthinkable, and E = mc² gained wide acceptance as, by 1910, a CRT with 1,000 V accelerated electrons up
o v/c = 0,0625, and only using alpha particles values of c/v = 0.17 were
obtained by 1911 in the experiments of Geiger and Marsden. By 1920,
Rutherford had obtained alpha particles values of c/v = 0.67, and only
by 1930, when proton accelerators were invented, (Van de Graaff,
Lawrence, Cockcroft) energies higher than 0.1 MeV (v/c higher than
0.99996) started to be obtained.

----------------- Final part of the 1905 paper -------------------------------------------------

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 + 1/2 L + 1/2 L

H₀ = H₁ + L/√(1 - v²/c²)

By subtraction we obtain from these equations

H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1)
................
Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place

H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = 1/2 L/c² . v²

From this equation it directly follows that:—

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we
are led to the more general conclusion that

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

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable
to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully
put to the test.

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

----------------- End of the 1905 paper -------------------------------------------------

The fallacy of the circular reasoning is two fold:

1) Einstein never introduced the mass M₀, which is at rest in the system
(x, y, z). Instead he used its energy content before (E₀) and after (E₁)
the light was turned on.

2) He asserted that E₀ = E₁ + L, so (E₀ - E₁) = L is the energy content of M₀
which has been converted into light.

And due to this assertion, disguised into difference of energy between
systems (x, y, z) and (ξ, η, ζ), is that he ASSUME mass M₀ diminishes
by L/c².

3) Einstein is tricky enough to NEVER introduce something as M₀. In the
paper always talk about ENERGY, except at the end when a mass loss
is asserted as being L/c².

The word "mass" appears only 4 times, and in the last paragraphs.
The word "inertia" appears only 2 times: in the title and in the last sentence.

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

Using the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY (LCE), is easy to prove
the fallacies in the paper. It requires the use of Mₒ as the rest mass in
the system (x, y, z), for which the LCE applies as follows:

(LCE) Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ , with K and U as kinetic and potential energies.

------------------------------- Excerpts from the paper ------------------------------------

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.
..........
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 ..................

E₀ = E₁ + L
H₀ = H₁ + γ . L

------------------------------------ End of excerpts -----------------------------------------

Case 1) 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.

M₀ is at rest, so Kᵢ = 0. Also has no potential energy, so Uᵢ = 0.
Once the light is turned on, still no variations and Kₑ = Uₑ = 0.

The principle of conservation of energy is verified in system (x, y, z).

Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ

Case 2) 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.

M₀ is at rest, so Kᵢ = 0, BUT potential energy in the system (x, y, z)
is Uᵢ = Mₒ.c².

When the light is turned on, it happens that Kₑ = 0, but the potential
energy Uₑ in the system (x, y, z) has changed and is:

Uₑ = (Mₒ - L/c²).c² + L

In this way, while the mass Mₒ lost an amount equivalent to L/c², the
energy in the system (x, y, z) IS CONSERVED, because that loss of mass
has been transformed into the energy L of both beams of light.

And this is how the circular argument (Petitio Principii) was introduced,
disguised under energy and avoiding to talk about mass until the very
last words in the paper. It's not MAGIC, it's a FALLACY.

I'd like that anyone can analyze this, and prove me wrong with the circular
reasoning (begging the question) that the paper has.

Now, can anyone to prove me WRONG?

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 23:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz wrote:

> It is proven (IMO) that Einstein NEVER obtained a direct derivation for the
> formula m=E/c² that appear as a conclusion of the paper. He tried six
> more times until he gave up in 1942. Yet, the approximation was accepted
> and generalized for any velocity, even when it's valid for v << c.

Here is the paper
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/232514/Einstein%20E=mc2%20(pp172-174).pdf

It seems pretty direct to me.

On 05-Oct-21 5:02 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Now, can anyone to prove me WRONG?

Certainly.

But they won't be able to convince you that they've proved you wrong.

Sylvia.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't like revisions of historic papers, please stop reading.

Roger that. Good to know your intentions right from the start. Revisionist
history seems to be a hobby of yours.

>
> This post is about fallacies and circular reasoning present in the 1905
> paper "Does the Inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”.
>
> It is proven (IMO) that Einstein NEVER obtained a direct derivation for the
> formula m=E/c² that appear as a conclusion of the paper. He tried six
> more times until he gave up in 1942. Yet, the approximation was accepted
> and generalized for any velocity, even when it's valid for v << c.
>
> The circular argument is evident at plain sight, and Planck noticed this
> by 1906, introducing some corrections to include momentum in 1907.
>
> Perhaps, in that epoch, imagining to obtain velocities higher than
> 30,000 Km/sec (v/c > 0.1) was unthinkable, and E = mc² gained wide
> acceptance as, by 1910, a CRT with 1,000 V accelerated electrons up
> o v/c = 0,0625, and only using alpha particles values of c/v = 0.17 were
> obtained by 1911 in the experiments of Geiger and Marsden. By 1920,
> Rutherford had obtained alpha particles values of c/v = 0.67, and only
> by 1930, when proton accelerators were invented, (Van de Graaff,
> Lawrence, Cockcroft) energies higher than 0.1 MeV (v/c higher than
> 0.99996) started to be obtained.
>
> ----------------- Final part of the 1905 paper
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 + 1/2 L + 1/2 L
>
> H₀ = H₁ + L/√(1 - v²/c²)
>
> By subtraction we obtain from these equations
>
> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1)
> ...............
> Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place
>
> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = 1/2 L/c² . v²
>
> From this equation it directly follows that:—
>
> If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
> becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we
> are led to the more general conclusion that
>
> The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
> changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²⁰, the
> energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.
>
> It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable
> to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully
> put to the test.
>
> If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between
> the emitting and absorbing bodies.
>
> ----------------- End of the 1905 paper -------------------------------------------------
>
> The fallacy of the circular reasoning is two fold:
>
> 1) Einstein never introduced the mass M₀, which is at rest in the system
> (x, y, z). Instead he used its energy content before (E₀) and after (E₁)
> the light was turned on.
>
> 2) He asserted that E₀ = E₁ + L, so (E₀ - E₁) = L is the energy content of M₀
> which has been converted into light.
>
> And due to this assertion, disguised into difference of energy between
> systems (x, y, z) and (ξ, η, ζ), is that he ASSUME mass M₀ diminishes
> by L/c².
>
> 3) Einstein is tricky enough to NEVER introduce something as M₀. In the
> paper always talk about ENERGY, except at the end when a mass loss
> is asserted as being L/c².
>
> The word "mass" appears only 4 times, and in the last paragraphs.
> The word "inertia" appears only 2 times: in the title and in the last sentence.
>
> *******************************************************
>
> Using the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY (LCE), is easy to prove
> the fallacies in the paper. It requires the use of Mₒ as the rest mass in
> the system (x, y, z), for which the LCE applies as follows:
>
> (LCE) Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ , with K and U as kinetic and potential energies.
>
> ------------------------------- Excerpts from the paper
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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.
> .........
> 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 ..................
>
> E₀ = E₁ + L
> H₀ = H₁ + γ . L
>
> ------------------------------------ End of excerpts
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Case 1) 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.
>
> M₀ is at rest, so Kᵢ = 0. Also has no potential energy, so Uᵢ = 0.
> Once the light is turned on, still no variations and Kₑ = Uₑ = 0.
>
> The principle of conservation of energy is verified in system (x, y, z).
>
> Kᵢ + Uᵢ = Kₑ + Uₑ
>
> Case 2) 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.
>
> M₀ is at rest, so Kᵢ = 0, BUT potential energy in the system (x, y, z)
> is Uᵢ = Mₒ.c².
>
> When the light is turned on, it happens that Kₑ = 0, but the potential
> energy Uₑ in the system (x, y, z) has changed and is:
>
> Uₑ = (Mₒ - L/c²).c² + L
>
> In this way, while the mass Mₒ lost an amount equivalent to L/c², the
> energy in the system (x, y, z) IS CONSERVED, because that loss of mass
> has been transformed into the energy L of both beams of light.
>
> And this is how the circular argument (Petitio Principii) was introduced,
> disguised under energy and avoiding to talk about mass until the very
> last words in the paper. It's not MAGIC, it's a FALLACY.
>
> I'd like that anyone can analyze this, and prove me wrong with the circular
> reasoning (begging the question) that the paper has.
>
>
> Now, can anyone to prove me WRONG?

Prove what wrong? You said at top you were going to embark on revisionist
history, and so why would anybody bother to try to prove that wrong? It’s
wrong from the declaration of intent.

>
>
>
>

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

On 04.Oct.2021, Richard Hertz wrote:

> It is proven (IMO) that Einstein NEVER obtained a direct derivation for
> the formula m=E/c² that appear as a conclusion of the paper. He tried
> six more times until he gave up in 1942. Yet, the approximation was
> accepted and generalized for any velocity, even when it's valid for v <<
> c.

are you kidding me?? What the hell does a 81 years old, the fraudci, a
bureaucrat not a doctor, as chief in the matter of states, health and
everything?? He is stupid like shit, and should end his life due the
*Nuremberg _2_trials* like everybody else in every countries around the
globe.

From the original 1905 paper, the formula M = E/c² has been generalized for 0 < v < 0.3 with an error of 0.3134%.

Original 1905 formulae:

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

As, for McLauren series expansion:

1/√(1 - x²) = Σ{k=0,∞} Π{k=1,∞} [(2k-1) . x^2k/(k! . 2^k)] , it renders:

L . (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1) = (L/c²) . 1/2.v² .. ( 1 + 3/4 (v/c)² + 15/24 (v/c)⁴ + 105/192 (v/c)⁶ + .......)

Some authors are inclined to think that E₀ = M₀.c² = 0, because the validity of dM = (L/c²) only applies for v > 0, as
it can be seen in the original approximation.

For E₀ = M₀.c² ≠ 0, it is required uniform motion v > 0, for a RELATIVE DIFFERENCE between systems (x, y, z) and (ξ, η, ζ).

Others have suggested that a more proper validity for the alleged (L/c²) loss of mass M₀ when the light is turned ON,
would require an extension of the McLaurin expansion to higher powers, like:

KE₀ = 1/2 . (L/c²) . v²

KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0.5424%.

The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the electron's energy in the quantum world.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the original 1905 paper, the formula M = E/c² has been generalized
> for 0 < v < 0.3 with an error of 0.3134%.
>
> Original 1905 formulae:
>
> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1) = 1/2 L/c² . v²
>
> As, for McLauren series expansion:
>
> 1/√(1 - x²) = Σ{k=0,∞} Π{k=1,∞} [(2k-1) . x^2k/(k! . 2^k)] , it renders:
>
> L . (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1) = (L/c²) . 1/2.v² . ( 1 + 3/4 (v/c)² + 15/24
> (v/c)⁴ + 105/192 (v/c)⁶ + ......)
>
> Some authors are inclined to think that E₀ = M₀.c² = 0, because the
> validity of dM = (L/c²) only applies for v > 0, as
> it can be seen in the original approximation.
>
> For E₀ = M₀.c² ≠ 0, it is required uniform motion v > 0, for a RELATIVE
> DIFFERENCE between systems (x, y, z) and (ξ, η, ζ).
>
> Others have suggested that a more proper validity for the alleged (L/c²)
> loss of mass M₀ when the light is turned ON,
> would require an extension of the McLaurin expansion to higher powers, like:
>
> KE₀ = 1/2 . (L/c²) . v²
>
> KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to
> extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0.5424%.
>
> The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the
> electron's energy in the quantum world.
>
>
>

There is a lovely primer about special relativity as it applies to
particles of arbitrary energy and (allowed) speed at https://pdg.lbl.gov.
Just in case you had no idea how anybody would apply it other than
referring to the 1905 paper.

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

The Einstein's worship and populace brainwashing never cease to amaze me. I found this today:

https://earthsky.org/human-world/einsteins-most-famous-equation-emc2/

"In 1905 on tomorrow’s date (September 27) – while employed at a patent office in Bern Switzerland – Albert Einstein published the last of four papers he submitted that year to the journal Annalen der Physik. The first explained the photoelectric effect. The second offered EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ATOMS. And the third introduced the theory of special relativity. Then, in this fourth paper, Einstein EXPLAINED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY AND MASS, described by E=mc²."

"This equation enabled scientists to learn how to build a single bomb that could wipe out a city, such as the atomic bombs that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II."

So, this site misinform that Einstein discovered the atoms EXPERIMENTALLY! Poor Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr, Curie, Fermi, and 1,000 of others by then. At least they are relieved by this accusation of the true origin of the atomic bombs!.

Anyways, I was looking for his next attempts to perfect the lame approximation. These are some pathetic findings:

https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/proof2.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They teach this: dE/dt = F.v = d(mv)/dt . v = v² . dm/dt + m.v .. dv/dt

Multiplying the last equation by dt(E)/dE and using the chain rule, we recover: 1 = v² . dm/dt . dt/dE + m.v . dv/dt . dt/dE

1 = v² . dm/dE + m.v . dv/dE

Rearranging we recover dm/dE = 1/v² - m/v . dv/dE

We now take the limit in which the energy E grows large. In that limit, v approaches c asymptotically and dv/dE approaches zero.
In this limit we have lim (E -> ∞) dm/dE = 1/c².

This equation is the result. It tells us that mass grows incrementally by 1/c² for each unit of energy E added. While this result holds generally, this simple demonstration returns the result only in the special case in which the energy E of the body has grown so large
that its speed is close to c.

Thanks to Christian Seberino for suggesting this calculation.

Copyright John D. Norton. May 8, 2015.
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
University of Pittsburgh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you understand? They teach this THERE! And, at least, two people are involved. No relativity (and NO demonstration)!

***********************************************************************************************************************
At this site, students use relativity, rockets, etc., to get to a similar approach (and with general validity for any value of v):

https://math.iupui.edu/~jwatt/16500/honors/HP13.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It starts with the usual F = d(m₁v₁)/dt₁ = d/dt₁(m₀.v₁/√(1 - v₁²/c²) ) = m₀.a₁/(1 - v₁²/c²)^3/2

E = ∫ F . dx = m₀ . ∫ a₁/(1 - v₁²/c²)^3/2 . dx and, as a₁ = v₁ . dv₁/dx and ∫ F . dx between 0 and x.

E = m₀ . ∫ v₁/(1 - v₁²/c²)^3/2 .. dv₁

Integrating between 0 and v₁, it gives E = c² . (m₁ - m₀)
where m = (m₁ - m₀) is the change in mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is the HONOR PROJECT at this site (6 pages, 3.5 more pages than Einstein. Rockets required).

HonorsProject13: A Simple Proof That E=mc²
Objective

In this project we present a simple proof of Albert Einstein’s famous formula E= mc².
Our goal is to highlight the important role that some simple ideas from Calculus play in proving this result,
not to present a complete discussion of Special Relativity Theory.

SITE: IUPUI, Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis.

Applicability: Any value 0 < v < c (It requires v₁ ≠ 0 or it doesn't work. Just like in 1905 paper).

Do you understand? They teach this THERE! And this is a LESSON given to EVERY STUDENT at these Universities.

***********************************************************************************************************************
And this link contains "Einstein’s 1935 Derivation of E = mc²" analysis, along with Friedman and Stachel and
Torretti (1982) derivations, NONE OF WHICH can escape from the original approximation by discarding higher
powers of 1/√(1 - v₁²/c²) using Taylor, McLaurin, whatever.

By then, Einstein used a full 3D space and a new language derived from his lessons with tensor notations, but
NONE of them can avoid the use of Newton's mechanics PLUS the original sin (that E₀ = m₀.c² for v = 0).

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=phil_fac

The author warns that NO VOLUNTARY FALLACIES are used, but......

"My purpose is to reiterate the point that this derivation is not fallacious—‘purely dynamical’ derivations of mass—energy
equivalence were not proposed as corrections to Einstein’s (1905b).. Instead, in Einstein’s case, his 1935 derivation is
motivated by the desire, often expressed by physicists, to find a derivation of mass—energy equivalence that in no way
appeals to Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism."

NOTE: THEY CAN'T HELP IT, NO MATTER HOW HARD ANY OF THEM TRIED. A general E = mc² is still UNPROVEN in
theoretical terms. So, it's adopted and the problem is solved. Fucking revisionists!

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 8:59:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The Einstein's worship and populace brainwashing never cease to amaze me. I found this today:
>
> https://earthsky.org/human-world/einsteins-most-famous-equation-emc2/
>
> "In 1905 on tomorrow’s date (September 27) – while employed at a patent office in Bern Switzerland – Albert Einstein published the last of four papers he submitted that year to the journal Annalen der Physik. The first explained the photoelectric effect. The second offered EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ATOMS. And the third introduced the theory of special relativity. Then, in this fourth paper, Einstein EXPLAINED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY AND MASS, described by E=mc²."
>
> "This equation enabled scientists to learn how to build a single bomb that could wipe out a city, such as the atomic bombs that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II."
>
> So, this site misinform that Einstein discovered the atoms EXPERIMENTALLY! Poor Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr, Curie, Fermi, and 1,000 of others by then.. At least they are relieved by this accusation of the true origin of the atomic bombs!.

Find another hobby. You are only hurting yourself, and for what?

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Einstein's worship and populace brainwashing never cease to amaze me.
> I found this today:
>
> https://earthsky.org/human-world/einsteins-most-famous-equation-emc2/
>
> "In 1905 on tomorrow’s date (September 27) – while employed at a patent
> office in Bern Switzerland – Albert Einstein published the last of four
> papers he submitted that year to the journal Annalen der Physik. The
> first explained the photoelectric effect. The second offered EXPERIMENTAL
> PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ATOMS. And the third introduced the theory of
> special relativity. Then, in this fourth paper, Einstein EXPLAINED THE
> RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY AND MASS, described by E=mc²."
>
> "This equation enabled scientists to learn how to build a single bomb
> that could wipe out a city, such as the atomic bombs that destroyed the
> Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II."
>
> So, this site misinform that Einstein discovered the atoms EXPERIMENTALLY!

Yes, indeed, with Brownian motion. Up until that point, atoms were
considered a likely and attractive hypothesis that did not have firm
experimental confirmation.

> Poor Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr, Curie, Fermi, and 1,000 of others by then.

And as is customary for you, you seem to be not very well informed of the
actual history of the subject.

> At least they are relieved by this accusation of the true origin of the atomic bombs!.
>

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

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated his older cretinisms:

> KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0.5424%.
>
> The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the electron's energy in the quantum world.

Cretinoid,

I know I explained this to you before , yet you persist in posting falsities.

QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:

E=\gamma mc^2
\vec{p}=\gamma m \vec{v}

From the above, the kinetic energy is:

K=E-mc*2

and the relationship between energy and momentum :

E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}

No approximations, the formulas are exact. Before you start frothing at the mouth, the formulas are confirmed ny the functionality of particle accelerators, shit eater.

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 16:33:10 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated his older cretinisms:
> > KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0..5424%.
> >
> > The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the electron's energy in the quantum world.
> Cretinoid,
>
> I know I explained this to you before , yet you persist in posting falsities.
>
> QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:
>
> E=\gamma mc^2
> \vec{p}=\gamma m \vec{v}
>
> From the above, the kinetic energy is:
>
> K=E-mc*2
>
> and the relationship between energy and momentum :
>
> E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
>
> No approximations, the formulas are exact. Before you start frothing at the mouth, the formulas are confirmed ny the functionality of particle accelerators, shit eater.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:17:20 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Find another hobby. You are only hurting yourself, and for what?

Jan, I feel sorry for you less than poor rhetoric and critical thinking. Is that the reason by which, when cornered,
you resort to such childish reply?

If you want, we can discuss about SW programming, because it's obvious how uncomfortable do you feel when
you don't have nothing to say when, just using elementary logic, your beloved relativity is crushed.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:33:10 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated his older cretinisms:
> > KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0..5424%.
> >
> > The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the electron's energy in the quantum world.
> Cretinoid,
>
> I know I explained this to you before , yet you persist in posting falsities.
>
> QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:
>
> E=\gamma mc^2
> \vec{p}=\gamma m \vec{v}
>
> From the above, the kinetic energy is:
>
> K=E-mc*2
>
> and the relationship between energy and momentum :
>
> E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
>
> No approximations, the formulas are exact. Before you start frothing at the mouth, the formulas are confirmed ny the functionality of particle accelerators, shit eater.

Fucking lazy dog. You can't even write your post making an effort to make it readable. I'll do it for you:

---------------------------------------------------Traducing Dono's impaired writing -------------------------------------------------------------------

QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:

E = γ . m.c²

p⃗ = γ . m.v⃗
From the above, the kinetic energy is:

K = E - m.c²

and the relationship between energy and momentum :

E = √[(p.c)² + (m.c²)²]

No approximations, the formulas are exact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See, retarded reptilian lifeform? Writing it in a DECENT WAY patently show how much of a retarded,
fallacious, liar and rotten minded are you.

1) It was Planck, 20 years before Dirac, who wrote the last formula (1907).

2) It proves nothing, fucking idiot, except in your drug-deviated mind. It's not better than what kids did
in my first or second link about what's taught at colleges (for retarded like you). Still lack any proof
that connects p⃗ = γ . m.v⃗ with (p.c) for v reaching c. And IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to achieve, because γ
diverges to infinity if v = c. So, reaching the TRUE MEANING that Planck had in mind requires that,
being m₀ the mass at rest,

E² = (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)²

But (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)² = γ².m₀².c² + m₀².c⁴ = m₀².c⁴ . (1 + γ².v²/c²)

and (1 + γ².v²/c²) = γ² , which gives, when replaced into E

E² = (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)² = m₀².c⁴ . γ² = (γ.m₀)².c⁴ = (m.c²)²

E² = (m.c²)²

See, retarded? Mathturbation to get the same thing, and also a mathorgasm in your rotten mind.

3) And all this mathturbation still has the ORIGINAL SINS: a) NOT PROVEN; b) Still VALID for v/c < 0.3
even when an error of 0.3134% respect to γ value is tolerated.

4) And no wonder you relate so much to Dirac and Einstein. The first, a tormented autistic math wizard
and the second a cretin, liar and plagiarist.

Everything, except wizard, applies to you: tormented, autistic, cretin, liar and plagiarist giant lizard.

You, Dono, are nothing without Mathematica, which you used to plagiarize results and post as math educated.

You can't even articulate a meaningful sentence within 3 or 4 lines of text. Too much for the mind of
a giant lizard. So, instead of posting shit 2,000 times a year, find something really at your reach, like flipping burgers.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:12:53 AM UTC-7, cretin Richard Hertz ate some more shit:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:33:10 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated his older cretinisms:
> > > KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0.5424%.
> > >
> > > The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the electron's energy in the quantum world.
> > Cretinoid,
> >
> > I know I explained this to you before , yet you persist in posting falsities.
> >
> > QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:
> >
> > E=\gamma mc^2
> > \vec{p}=\gamma m \vec{v}
> >
> > From the above, the kinetic energy is:
> >
> > K=E-mc*2
> >
> > and the relationship between energy and momentum :
> >
> > E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
> >
> > No approximations, the formulas are exact. Before you start frothing at the mouth, the formulas are confirmed ny the functionality of particle accelerators, shit eater.

I see that you understood nothing, you continue to eat shit, as predicted.

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 9:53:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:17:20 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Find another hobby. You are only hurting yourself, and for what?
> Jan, I feel sorry for you less than poor rhetoric and critical thinking. Is that the reason by which, when cornered,
> you resort to such childish reply?

See, this is your problem: you keep fantasising in a childish manner. About physics, about
yourself, about the others.

> If you want, we can discuss about SW programming, because it's obvious how uncomfortable do you feel when
> you don't have nothing to say when, just using elementary logic, your beloved relativity is crushed.

Again, stop fantasising. So far you have not pointed out to a single error
in Einstein's theory and when errors on your part are pointed out, you
simply leave the thread and start a new nonsensical one. You can
leave the dreamland about "cornering" in the kindergarten sandbox where
it belongs.

Again, I recommend you change your hobby. This one leads you nowhere.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:33:10 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
>> repeated his older cretinisms:
>>> KE energy of lost mass (L/c²) = KE₀ . [1 + 3/4 (v/c)²] , in order to
>>> extend the range of validity to 0 < v < 0.5 with error 0.5424%.
>>>
>>> The maximum value v = 0.5.c could extend the validity of E = mc² to the
>>> electron's energy in the quantum world.
>> Cretinoid,
>>
>> I know I explained this to you before , yet you persist in posting falsities.
>>
>> QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:
>>
>> E=\gamma mc^2
>> \vec{p}=\gamma m \vec{v}
>>
>> From the above, the kinetic energy is:
>>
>> K=E-mc*2
>>
>> and the relationship between energy and momentum :
>>
>> E=\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}
>>
>> No approximations, the formulas are exact. Before you start frothing at
>> the mouth, the formulas are confirmed ny the functionality of particle
>> accelerators, shit eater.
>
> Fucking lazy dog. You can't even write your post making an effort to make
> it readable. I'll do it for you:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------Traducing Dono's
> impaired writing -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> QED (Dirac) defines the four vector energy-momentum (E,p) as follows:
>
> E = γ . m.c²
>
> p⃗ = γ . m.v⃗
>
> From the above, the kinetic energy is:
>
> K = E - m.c²
>
> and the relationship between energy and momentum :
>
> E = √[(p.c)² + (m.c²)²]
>
> No approximations, the formulas are exact.

Note that while these formulas are used in QED and in the Dirac model,
Dirac is not the one who came up with them.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See, retarded reptilian lifeform? Writing it in a DECENT WAY patently
> show how much of a retarded,
> fallacious, liar and rotten minded are you.
>
> 1) It was Planck, 20 years before Dirac, who wrote the last formula (1907).

Nor was it particularly novel to derive that after 1905.

>
> 2) It proves nothing, fucking idiot, except in your drug-deviated mind.
> It's not better than what kids did
> in my first or second link about what's taught at colleges (for
> retarded like you). Still lack any proof
> that connects p⃗ = γ . m.v⃗ with (p.c) for v reaching c.

No, p.c is not derived from p=gamma.m.v in a limit function. It comes from
the Einstein relation for the energy of the photon.

More importantly, momentum is something that can be measured in collisions
and the relations for high speed massive particle momentum and for photon
momentum are confirmed by explicit measurement and check against
conservation law.

> And IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to achieve, because γ
> diverges to infinity if v = c. So, reaching the TRUE MEANING that
> Planck had in mind requires that,
> being m₀ the mass at rest,
>
> E² = (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)²
>
> But (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)² = γ².m₀².c² + m₀².c⁴ = m₀².c⁴ . (1 + γ².v²/c²)
>
> and (1 + γ².v²/c²) = γ² , which gives, when replaced into E
>
> E² = (p.c)² + (m₀.c²)² = m₀².c⁴ . γ² = (γ.m₀)².c⁴ = (m.c²)²
>
> E² = (m.c²)²
>
> See, retarded? Mathturbation to get the same thing, and also a
> mathorgasm in your rotten mind.
>
> 3) And all this mathturbation still has the ORIGINAL SINS: a) NOT
> PROVEN; b) Still VALID for v/c < 0.3
> even when an error of 0.3134% respect to γ value is tolerated.
>
> 4) And no wonder you relate so much to Dirac and Einstein. The first, a
> tormented autistic math wizard
> and the second a cretin, liar and plagiarist.
>
> Everything, except wizard, applies to you: tormented, autistic,
> cretin, liar and plagiarist giant lizard.
>
> You, Dono, are nothing without Mathematica, which you used to
> plagiarize results and post as math educated.
>
> You can't even articulate a meaningful sentence within 3 or 4 lines of
> text. Too much for the mind of
> a giant lizard. So, instead of posting shit 2,000 times a year, find
> something really at your reach, like flipping burgers.
>
>

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

The term E depicts the energy of an electromagnetic photon yet the energy equation contains a mass (m) which invalidates Einstein energy equation. The photon momentum is invalid since a momentum implies a mass yet a photon is massless and cannot produce a mommentum.

carl ito <calpiss33@gmail.com> wrote:
> The term E depicts the energy of an electromagnetic photon yet the energy
> equation contains a mass (m) which invalidates Einstein energy equation.
> The photon momentum is invalid since a momentum implies a mass

I know you’re not well upstairs.

But it’s not true that momentum implies mass. That’s just a mistake.

> yet a photon is massless and cannot produce a mommentum.
>

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

"But it’s not true that momentum implies mass. That’s just a mistake."

Does the momentum contain the units of the mass? Jackson. Also, it certainly may be true about my upstairs since that is what she also says and would agree with you but downstairs works just fine, thank you.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> "But it’s not true that momentum implies mass. That’s just a mistake."
>
> Does the momentum contain the units of the mass?

Yes. Energy also contains the units of time. Does energy imply time? See
the problem with your thinking yet?

> Jackson. Also, it certainly may be true about my upstairs since that is
> what she also says and would agree with you but downstairs works just fine, thank you.
>

What happens downstairs is of no interest here. How scrambled upstairs is,
does matter here.

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

"Yes. Energy also contains the units of time. Does energy imply time? See
the problem with your thinking yet?"

Does a laser beam or X-ray displace a gold foil?

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:

You got got by a troll.
Yes, sometimes his posts are almost genuine_sounding, but since most of his posts are trolling, hence all his posts are, until proven otherwise. Just report it spam instead of stroking it.

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 9:14:14 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You got got by a troll.
> Yes, sometimes his posts are almost genuine_sounding, but since most of his posts are trolling, hence all his posts are, until proven otherwise. Just report it spam instead of stroking it.

Does a laser beam or X-ray displace a gold foil? Lester

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 9:30:36 AM UTC-7, carl eto wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 9:14:14 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You got got by a troll.
> > Yes, sometimes his posts are almost genuine_

Calling me a genus is an insult since that is Einstein moniker.