carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> "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?
>

One of the recurring symptoms for mentally ill people on the internet, so
my clinician psychologist friend tells me, is the inability to absorb
information. This can stem from delusional attachments, deep mistrust of
others, the emotional succor of repetitive patterns, or the impact of
general confusion on retentional memory.

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

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> 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.
>

Oh, I know this guy well. He’s the one that says that protons can’t
penetrate a gold foil because they would leave a hole because arc welders
leave a hole, and so the whole of particle physics is a sham. Sometimes I
like to touch lightly on him to remind him that he’s factually incorrect as
well as generally nuts.

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

You may be right about my mental state but a lot of mentally unstable people have contributed to science so your theory is unjustified since you are assuming that an unstable person is incompetent in physics yet there have been a lot or insane physicists, like Einstein for explain regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, you have not yet answered the unstable person's question: Does a laser beam or X-ray displace a gold foil?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> You may be right about my mental state but a lot of mentally unstable
> people have contributed to science

Reality check: the number of people who have contributed to science *while*
mentally unstable is remarkably small. Boltzmann suffered from bipolar
syndrome. John Nash was schizophrenic. There were some scientists who fell
ill *after* doing productive work.

But what is true about physicists, whether they are mentally ill or not, is
that they are all trained in physics. You are not. You will not be
competent in physics, mentally ill or not, if you are not trained in
physics.

> so your theory is unjustified since you are assuming that an unstable
> person is incompetent in physics yet there have been a lot or insane
> physicists, like Einstein for explain regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Also, you have not yet answered the unstable person's question: Does a
> laser beam or X-ray displace a gold foil?
>

Actually, this question was answered for you over and over again, months
ago. This is why I mentioned to you that mentally ill people have
difficulty absorbing information. You were not able to absorb the
information already provided to you several times.

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

You have not yet answered the unstable person's question: Does a laser beam or X-ray displace a gold foil?

JanPB wrote:

>> 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.

THE SEQUEL TO THE FALL OF THE CABAL - PART 18
https://www.bit chute.com/video/kBpjjYtJpUeS/

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:02:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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?

"Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may ...".

"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;...".

I think you can see that about mc^2, the proportional constant that, according
to first term Taylor series terms what it's in line with, or what usually work out
bounds for Fourier and what results things, Einstein left out "here watch me
drop out otherwise besides the term, here what conserves charge", there is left
out under potential what is charge then that besides it's a _generous reading_
and not taking license with Einstein, except to not take license with Einstein.

What measure there is the speed of light under mass-energy equivalence,
is a usual drift detector, in a usual general sense always square.

That "the particle accelerator actually does 'shrink', then decompress, on its track",
is for a usual verifiable experiment that running a particle accelerator in otherwise
a black box appears to shrink the box.

Which I think you might agree GR would also predict it would _look_ like.

(At the time.)

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:13:01 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 11:02:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> "Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may ...".
>
>
> "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;...".
>
>
> I think you can see that about mc^2, the proportional constant that, according
> to first term Taylor series terms what it's in line with, or what usually work out
> bounds for Fourier and what results things, Einstein left out "here watch me
> drop out otherwise besides the term, here what conserves charge", there is left
> out under potential what is charge then that besides it's a _generous reading_
> and not taking license with Einstein, except to not take license with Einstein.
>
>
>
> What measure there is the speed of light under mass-energy equivalence,
> is a usual drift detector, in a usual general sense always square.
>
> That "the particle accelerator actually does 'shrink', then decompress, on its track",
> is for a usual verifiable experiment that running a particle accelerator in otherwise
> a black box appears to shrink the box.
>
>
> Which I think you might agree GR would also predict it would _look_ like.
>
> (At the time.)

Does E represent the energy of a photon? Jackson

A massless photon that does not correspond with the term (m). Transforms that then use your hands to shake your friends dick.