Reposting:

If you all accept E = mc² and E = hf, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES.

Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?

E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²

KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²

KE = (pc) = mc

Replace this at the Newton's developed equation for hyperbolic motion
when a particle passes by a huge mass like the Sun, and you are replacing
the classic KE = 1/2 m.v² by the correct one KE = = pc = mc².

You get the deflection angle predicted by GR: θ = 4GM/c² . (Rsun/R),
valid for R >= Rs. The angle decay with (Rsun/R), and is pure newtonian.

By 1800, when von Soldner wrote his paper on the deflection of light, the
concept of KE = 1/2 m.v² or KE = pv, PLUS the equivalence mass-energy
were JUST starting to be debated, as well as the real meaning of Lagrangians in the conservation of energy for a closed system under
Newton Law of Gravitation. NOW IT'S KNOWN BETTER, but the results
don't like most physics and astronomers, because paint them as full retarded for ignoring this explanation.

Light has mass OR E = mc² OR E = hf ARE FALSE.

HOW MANY FORMULAE FOR ENERGY ARE WE HAVING, AFTER ALL?

de Broglie won a Nobel Prize, based on this thesis and its consequences.

Everyone who approved his PhD Thesis of 81 pages ought to be an imbecile, because French are imbeciles and all of you who disapprove this are not.

This is his PhD Thesis, which contains the origins of his path toward a Nobel, Schrodinger's theory and the electron microscope.
But, I insist, he WAS AN IDIOT, and everyone here (including Roberts) is a FUCKING GENIUS.

https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf

Excerpt:

CHAPTER 1
The Phase Wave
1.1. The relation between quantum and relativity theories

One of the most important new concepts introduced by Relativity is the inertia of
energy. Following EINSTEIN, energy may be considered as being equivalent to mass,
and all mass represents energy. Mass and energy may always be related one to another by
(1.1.1) energy = mass x c² where c is a constant known as the “speed of light”, but which, for
reasons delineated below, we prefer to denote the “limit speed of energy.”
........
Having recalled the above, we now seek to find a way to introduce quanta into relativistic dynamics.
It seems to us that the fundamental idea pertaining to quanta is the impossibility to consider an isolated
quantity of energy without associating a particular frequency to it.

This association is expressed by what I call the ‘quantum relationship’, namely:

(1.1.4) energy = h x frequency , where h is Planck’s constant.
.........
The notion of a quantum makes little sense, seemingly, if energy is to be continuously distributed through space;
but, we shall see that this is not so. One may imagine that, by cause of a meta law of Nature, to each portion of
energy with a proper mass m₀, one may associate a periodic phenomenon of frequency υ₀, such that one finds:

(1.1.5) hυ₀ = m₀c²

The frequency υ₀ is to be measured, of course, in the rest frame of the energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of
our theory: it is worth as much, like all hypotheses, as can be deduced from its consequences.
............
THEN HE DEVELOPS HIS QUANTUM THEORY THAT MADE HIM TO EARN A NOBEL PRIZE.

Another excerpt:

CHAPTER 5
Light quanta
5.1. The atom of light

........
This agglomeration of energy has a total value ε₀ (measured by a fixed observer), from which, by the principle
of inertia of energy, we may attribute to it a proper mass:

(5.1.1) m₀ = ε₀/c²

This definition is entirely analogue to that used for electrons. There is, however, an
essential difference between it and an electron. While an electron must be considered
as a fully spherically symmetric object, an atom of light posses additional symmetry
corresponding to its polarisation. We shall, therefore, represent a quantum of light as
having the same symmetry as an electrodynamic doublet. This paradigm is provisional;
one may only, if it is accepted, make precise the constitution of the unit of light after
serious modifications to electrodynamics, a task we shall not attempt here.
...........
Let us try to determine the upper limit of m₀ for light. Effectively, the experiments of T.
S. F.2 have shown that even light waves with wave length of several kilometres have a
velocity essentially equal to c. Let us take it that waves for which 1/υ = 1/10 1/seconds
have a velocity differing from c by less than 1%. This implies that the upper limit of m₀ is:

(5.1.9) (m₀)max = √2/10 hυ/c²

which is approximately 10^(-24) grams. It is possible that m₀ is still smaller; yet one might
hope that some day experiments on very long wave length light will reveal evidence of a
velocity discernibly below c .

One should not overlook that it is not a question regarding velocity of a phase wave,
which is always above c , but of energy transport detectable experimentally

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

So, due to E = mc² was accepted (and not because of Einstein, but due to 20/30 years of theories before him),
Einstein wrote a paper in 1911 which has one of many conclusions accepted today (blueshifting due to gravity).
de Broglie thought that light had mass, as well as 100's of physicists in the next 45 years (Pound-Rebka).

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

The 10^(-24) grams is what de Broglie thought as the UPPER LIMIT OF MASS FOR A "PHOTON" of 10 Hz only
is a TYPO, due to the use of the cgs system and h = 6.55.10E-27 erg.sec (g cm²/s), as he recognized afterwards.

It correspond to a photon of 1.94E+22 Hz, which is an extremely energetic gamma ray (wavelength 1.54E-12 cm)
and not from an ULF photon of 10 Hz, as it seems to be stated in the paper.

Actually the lower limit is 10^(-54) grams, and this value wasn't expressed on his PhD Thesis.

When visible light is used, the limits are what I wrote at the OP:

3.17E-33 grams (red) < m₀ < 5.53E-33 grams (blue).

And m₀ increases LINEARLY with the frequency, reaching > 10E-29 grams.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reposting:
>
> If you all accept E = mc² and E = hf, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES.

Well, there’s a bonehead mistake. You corrected E = mc² just below.

>
> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>
> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>
> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²

Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².

Good grief, you can’t do any of this stuff anymore.

>
> KE = (pc) = mc
>
> Replace this at the Newton's developed equation for hyperbolic motion
> when a particle passes by a huge mass like the Sun, and you are replacing
> the classic KE = 1/2 m.v² by the correct one KE = = pc = mc².
>
> You get the deflection angle predicted by GR: θ = 4GM/c² . (Rsun/R),
> valid for R >= Rs. The angle decay with (Rsun/R), and is pure newtonian.
>
> By 1800, when von Soldner wrote his paper on the deflection of light, the
> concept of KE = 1/2 m.v² or KE = pv, PLUS the equivalence mass-energy
> were JUST starting to be debated, as well as the real meaning of
> Lagrangians in the conservation of energy for a closed system under
> Newton Law of Gravitation. NOW IT'S KNOWN BETTER, but the results
> don't like most physics and astronomers, because paint them as full
> retarded for ignoring this explanation.
>
> Light has mass OR E = mc² OR E = hf ARE FALSE.
>
> HOW MANY FORMULAE FOR ENERGY ARE WE HAVING, AFTER ALL?
>
> de Broglie won a Nobel Prize, based on this thesis and its consequences.
>
> Everyone who approved his PhD Thesis of 81 pages ought to be an imbecile,
> because French are imbeciles and all of you who disapprove this are not.
>
> This is his PhD Thesis, which contains the origins of his path toward a
> Nobel, Schrodinger's theory and the electron microscope.
> But, I insist, he WAS AN IDIOT, and everyone here (including Roberts) is a FUCKING GENIUS.
>
> https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf
>
> Excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 1
> The Phase Wave
> 1.1. The relation between quantum and relativity theories
>
> One of the most important new concepts introduced by Relativity is the inertia of
> energy. Following EINSTEIN, energy may be considered as being equivalent to mass,
> and all mass represents energy. Mass and energy may always be related one to another by
> (1.1.1) energy = mass x c² where c is a constant known as the “speed of
> light”, but which, for
> reasons delineated below, we prefer to denote the “limit speed of energy.”
> .......
> Having recalled the above, we now seek to find a way to introduce quanta
> into relativistic dynamics.
> It seems to us that the fundamental idea pertaining to quanta is the
> impossibility to consider an isolated
> quantity of energy without associating a particular frequency to it.
>
> This association is expressed by what I call the ‘quantum relationship’, namely:
>
> (1.1.4) energy = h x frequency , where h is Planck’s constant.
> ........
> The notion of a quantum makes little sense, seemingly, if energy is to be
> continuously distributed through space;
> but, we shall see that this is not so. One may imagine that, by cause of
> a meta law of Nature, to each portion of
> energy with a proper mass m₀, one may associate a periodic phenomenon of
> frequency υ₀, such that one finds:
>
> (1.1.5) hυ₀ = m₀c²
>
> The frequency υ₀ is to be measured, of course, in the rest frame of the
> energy packet. This hypothesis is the basis of
> our theory: it is worth as much, like all hypotheses, as can be deduced
> from its consequences.
> ...........
> THEN HE DEVELOPS HIS QUANTUM THEORY THAT MADE HIM TO EARN A NOBEL PRIZE.
>
> Another excerpt:
>
> CHAPTER 5
> Light quanta
> 5.1. The atom of light
>
> .......
> This agglomeration of energy has a total value ε₀ (measured by a fixed
> observer), from which, by the principle
> of inertia of energy, we may attribute to it a proper mass:
>
> (5.1.1) m₀ = ε₀/c²
>
> This definition is entirely analogue to that used for electrons. There is, however, an
> essential difference between it and an electron. While an electron must be considered
> as a fully spherically symmetric object, an atom of light posses additional symmetry
> corresponding to its polarisation. We shall, therefore, represent a quantum of light as
> having the same symmetry as an electrodynamic doublet. This paradigm is provisional;
> one may only, if it is accepted, make precise the constitution of the unit of light after
> serious modifications to electrodynamics, a task we shall not attempt here.
> ..........
> Let us try to determine the upper limit of m₀ for light. Effectively, the experiments of T.
> S. F.2 have shown that even light waves with wave length of several kilometres have a
> velocity essentially equal to c. Let us take it that waves for which 1/υ = 1/10 1/seconds
> have a velocity differing from c by less than 1%. This implies that the
> upper limit of m₀ is:
>
> (5.1.9) (m₀)max = √2/10 hυ/c²
>
> which is approximately 10^(-24) grams. It is possible that m₀ is still
> smaller; yet one might
> hope that some day experiments on very long wave length light will reveal evidence of a
> velocity discernibly below c .
>
> One should not overlook that it is not a question regarding velocity of a phase wave,
> which is always above c , but of energy transport detectable experimentally
>
> ***************************
>
> So, due to E = mc² was accepted (and not because of Einstein, but due to
> 20/30 years of theories before him),
> Einstein wrote a paper in 1911 which has one of many conclusions accepted
> today (blueshifting due to gravity).
> de Broglie thought that light had mass, as well as 100's of physicists in
> the next 45 years (Pound-Rebka).
>
> *******************************
>
> The 10^(-24) grams is what de Broglie thought as the UPPER LIMIT OF MASS
> FOR A "PHOTON" of 10 Hz only
> is a TYPO, due to the use of the cgs system and h = 6.55.10E-27 erg.sec
> (g cm²/s), as he recognized afterwards.
>
> It correspond to a photon of 1.94E+22 Hz, which is an extremely energetic
> gamma ray (wavelength 1.54E-12 cm)
> and not from an ULF photon of 10 Hz, as it seems to be stated in the paper.
>
> Actually the lower limit is 10^(-54) grams, and this value wasn't
> expressed on his PhD Thesis.
>
> When visible light is used, the limits are what I wrote at the OP:
>
> 3.17E-33 grams (red) < m₀ < 5.53E-33 grams (blue).
>
> And m₀ increases LINEARLY with the frequency, reaching > 10E-29 grams.
>
>
>

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

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
> >
> > E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
> >
> > KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²

> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².
>
> Good grief, you can’t do any of this stuff anymore.
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?

Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.

I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² - (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²

Do you see the square root symbol, asshole? Or prefer to be a FUCKING LIAR, like Dono?

The KE is the total energy of a particle MINUS it's energy AT REST.

Why do you behave in this way? Is it a cultural thing or what? I don't know around here CRETINS like you.

Anyway, your kind of cretins have a low chance of survival at Argentina. But it seems that in US it works well.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:47:45 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> Reposting my previous imbecilities
>

Yep

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:47:45 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz embarrassed himself:
> Reposting an imbecility:

> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)²

Nope. Cretin. Stubborn. Stubborn cretin.

Le 23/12/2021 à 15:47, Richard Hertz a écrit :
> If you all accept E = mc² and E = hυ, DEAL WITH THESE AND THE CONSEQUENCES.
>
> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>
> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>
> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
>
> KE = (pc) = mc

Eg = sqrt(mc²+mVr²) = mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) = mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Ec=Eg-Eo

Ec=mc²[1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)-1] or Ec=mc²[sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)-1]

If Vr << c then Vr/c ~ Vo/c ~ ε ---> Ec ~ (1/2)mv²

R.H.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>>>
>>> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>>>
>>> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
>
>> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².
>>
>> Good grief, you can’t do any of this stuff anymore.
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?
>
> Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.
>
> I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² -
> (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²

Except that’s the wrong expression for the kinetic energy.

The one I wrote is the correct, experimentally verified one.

>
> Do you see the square root symbol, asshole? Or prefer to be a FUCKING LIAR, like Dono?
>
> The KE is the total energy of a particle MINUS it's energy AT REST.

Right, that’s the expression I wrote.

Are you having problems with algebra now?

The square root of E² - (m₀c²)² is not E - m₀c².

I’m beginning to think that all your former skills as an engineer are
beginning to rot. Is that the reason you come here with such bounteous
fonts of bile?

>
> Why do you behave in this way? Is it a cultural thing or what? I don't
> know around here CRETINS like you.
>
> Anyway, your kind of cretins have a low chance of survival at Argentina.
> But it seems that in US it works well.
>

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

Op 23-dec.-2021 om 17:07 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 12:19:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>>>>
>>>> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>>>>
>>>> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
>>
>>> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².
>>>
>>> Good grief, you can’t do any of this stuff anymore.
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?
>>
>> Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.
>>
>> I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² -
>> (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²
>
> Except that’s the wrong expression for the kinetic energy.
>
> The one I wrote is the correct, experimentally verified one.
>
>>
>> Do you see the square root symbol, asshole? Or prefer to be a FUCKING LIAR, like Dono?
>>
>> The KE is the total energy of a particle MINUS it's energy AT REST.
>
> Right, that’s the expression I wrote.
>
> Are you having problems with algebra now?
>
> The square root of E² - (m₀c²)² is not E - m₀c².

Reminds me of
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html

>
> I’m beginning to think that all your former skills as an engineer are
> beginning to rot. Is that the reason you come here with such bounteous
> fonts of bile?

And Seto never even have such skills to begin with.

Dirk Vdm

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:07:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> >>> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
> >>>
> >>> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
> >>>
> >>> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
> >
> >> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².

> > You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?
> >
> > Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.
> >
> > I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² - (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²

> Except that’s the wrong expression for the kinetic energy.

It's not, imbecile. This happens with IGNORANTS of history of science that pretend to pose as physicists.

The first expression of what's going to be known was "vis viva" or MOMENTUM, which gained consensus guided by Newton's assertions
on his treatise (2nd. law: RATE OF CHANGE of momentum). There was consensus that p = mv (vis viva) was ADEQUATE!
Also, gained consensus, by the end of XVIII century, that Energy = (vis viva) . v = mv².

In the last 20 years of XVIII century and the first 20 years of XIX century (over 40 years), a GENERALIZED DISCUSSION about IF the
energy was conserved was a general law of nature. Lagrangians, hamiltonians and several other theories were developed and applied
to CELESTIAL MECHANICS. Once the discussion about the role of HEAT in the general equation of conservation of energy finished,
the current accepted formula (E = KE + U) was accepted, with the conviction that E is conserved IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

It was applied, then, as general expression of Lagrangians for celestial mechanics, along with the accepted gravitational potential as energy.

But this is too much for your FOSSILIZED BRAIN, or the one of Dirk.

KE = 1/2 m v² was a FUCKING CONVENTION, so d/dt (1 /2 m v²) = VIS VIVA = m.v

But this is too much for idiotic minds like the ones of you both.

The increase of energy with the square of v WAS DEVELOPED AND ACCEPTED experimentally, using balls running down a tilted plane
and crashing into a wall of clay. The measurement of the PHYSICAL IMPACT (HOLE) under different masses and velocities found a
proportional volume OF THE CAVITY with the square of velocity. So, the formula IS NOT THEORETICAL. IT'S EMPIRICAL!

And GEOMETRY was the basis for the development of such (apparently) simple formula.

But the 1/2 factor was ARTIFICIALLY INTRODUCED for the reasons I explained above.

I can't follow dealing with ILLUSTRATED ASSHOLES (good for nothing).

And STOP LYING, FUCKING RETARDED!

I clearly wrote KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)², not KE = E - m₀c²

But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and distorting other people's saying because
it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.

The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz confirms he is an imbecile:

> I clearly wrote KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)², not KE = E - m₀c²
Thank you for confirming that you posted an imbecility, confirmed imbecile.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > I clearly wrote KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)², not KE = E - m₀c²

> Thank you for confirming that you posted an imbecility, confirmed imbecile.

Tell to me and everyone here, IDIOT!. How many expressions for energy are available in gravito-electro-dynamics?

E₀ = m₀c² (This is energy at rest, derived from the hallucinations of your fucking pagan god, under drugs)

E = 1/2 mv² (developed by theologians of physics, from "vis viva")

E = p.v = mv.v = mv² (Newton's "vis viva" x speed)

E = (mc).c = mc² (again from the fucker)

E = h.f (Planck's quanta)

E = - GM/r (Newton-Poisson-Lagrange-Laplace, etc.)

E = m.g.h (Newton, Euler)

E = B/T = m.v.r/T (angular momentum/period)

All of them have unit: Joule : K.m²/s²

Now tell me what is your fucking problem, Dono. You are SICK OF HATE and resentment, mental midget reptilian lifeform.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:07:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>>>>>
>>>>> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>>>>>
>>>>> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
>>>
>>>> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².
>
>>> You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?
>>>
>>> Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.
>>>
>>> I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² -
>>> (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²
>
>> Except that’s the wrong expression for the kinetic energy.
>
> It's not, imbecile. This happens with IGNORANTS of history of science
> that pretend to pose as physicists.
>
> The first expression of what's going to be known was "vis viva" or
> MOMENTUM, which gained consensus guided by Newton's assertions
> on his treatise (2nd. law: RATE OF CHANGE of momentum). There was
> consensus that p = mv (vis viva) was ADEQUATE!
> Also, gained consensus, by the end of XVIII century, that Energy = (vis viva) . v = mv².
>
> In the last 20 years of XVIII century and the first 20 years of XIX
> century (over 40 years), a GENERALIZED DISCUSSION about IF the
> energy was conserved was a general law of nature. Lagrangians,
> hamiltonians and several other theories were developed and applied
> to CELESTIAL MECHANICS. Once the discussion about the role of HEAT in the
> general equation of conservation of energy finished,
> the current accepted formula (E = KE + U) was accepted, with the
> conviction that E is conserved IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.
>
> It was applied, then, as general expression of Lagrangians for celestial
> mechanics, along with the accepted gravitational potential as energy.
>
> But this is too much for your FOSSILIZED BRAIN, or the one of Dirk.
>
> KE = 1/2 m v² was a FUCKING CONVENTION, so d/dt (1 /2 m v²) = VIS VIVA = m.v
>
> But this is too much for idiotic minds like the ones of you both.
>
> The increase of energy with the square of v WAS DEVELOPED AND ACCEPTED
> experimentally, using balls running down a tilted plane
> and crashing into a wall of clay. The measurement of the PHYSICAL IMPACT
> (HOLE) under different masses and velocities found a
> proportional volume OF THE CAVITY with the square of velocity. So, the
> formula IS NOT THEORETICAL. IT'S EMPIRICAL!
>
> And GEOMETRY was the basis for the development of such (apparently) simple formula.
>
> But the 1/2 factor was ARTIFICIALLY INTRODUCED for the reasons I explained above.
>
> I can't follow dealing with ILLUSTRATED ASSHOLES (good for nothing).
>
> And STOP LYING, FUCKING RETARDED!
>
> I clearly wrote KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)², not KE = E - m₀c²

Yes you did, which is wrong. The correct statement you made was, and I
quote, “The KE is the total energy of a particle MINUS it's energy AT
REST.” Which if you’ll look, is the second equation you said you did not
write.

>
>
> But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and
> distorting other people's saying because
> it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.

So quoting you that “The KE is the total energy of a particle MINUS it's
energy AT REST” is lying, cheating, and distorting. Got it. Interesting
perspective, Richard.

>
> The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:07:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Remember Planck extension, for the total energy of a moving particle?
>>>>>
>>>>> E² = (m₀c²)² + (pc)²
>>>>>
>>>>> KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)²
>>>
>>>> Well, there’s another bonehead mistake. KE = E - m₀c².
>
>>> You are some special kind of retarded, Bodkin, aren't you?
>>>
>>> Or a fucking liar resorting to modifications of other people's posts.
>>>
>>> I clearly wrote that, derived from Planck's extension, KE = √[(E² -
>>> (m₀c²)²] = pc = m.c.c = m.c²
>
>> Except that’s the wrong expression for the kinetic energy.
>
> It's not, imbecile. This happens with IGNORANTS of history of science
> that pretend to pose as physicists.
>
> The first expression of what's going to be known was "vis viva" or
> MOMENTUM, which gained consensus guided by Newton's assertions
> on his treatise (2nd. law: RATE OF CHANGE of momentum). There was
> consensus that p = mv (vis viva) was ADEQUATE!
> Also, gained consensus, by the end of XVIII century, that Energy = (vis viva) . v = mv².
>
> In the last 20 years of XVIII century and the first 20 years of XIX
> century (over 40 years), a GENERALIZED DISCUSSION about IF the
> energy was conserved was a general law of nature. Lagrangians,
> hamiltonians and several other theories were developed and applied
> to CELESTIAL MECHANICS. Once the discussion about the role of HEAT in the
> general equation of conservation of energy finished,
> the current accepted formula (E = KE + U) was accepted, with the
> conviction that E is conserved IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.
>
> It was applied, then, as general expression of Lagrangians for celestial
> mechanics, along with the accepted gravitational potential as energy.
>
> But this is too much for your FOSSILIZED BRAIN, or the one of Dirk.
>
> KE = 1/2 m v² was a FUCKING CONVENTION, so d/dt (1 /2 m v²) = VIS VIVA = m.v

Well, plus the fact that without the factor of 2, the conservation of
mechanical energy E=T+U would not hold in a closed system. Try it for a
falling object where U=mgh.

Now, you could redefine U to be 2mgh, but then the work-energy theorem goes
wrong.

>
> But this is too much for idiotic minds like the ones of you both.
>
> The increase of energy with the square of v WAS DEVELOPED AND ACCEPTED
> experimentally, using balls running down a tilted plane
> and crashing into a wall of clay. The measurement of the PHYSICAL IMPACT
> (HOLE) under different masses and velocities found a
> proportional volume OF THE CAVITY with the square of velocity. So, the
> formula IS NOT THEORETICAL. IT'S EMPIRICAL!

Yes, it’s a fine approximation for such tests.

Recall that the correct expression for kinetic energy is (gamma-1)mc^2,
where m is invariant mass. The coefficient in front can be expanded as a
series by the binomial theorem for small beta=v/c, which yields
Gamma-1 = (1/2)beta^2 + (3/8)beta^4+…
Just taking the first term yields the 1/2mv^2, and the second term compared
to the first term is smaller by a factor of (3/4)beta^2, so it’s absolutely
no wonder that the hole made by a rolling ball is a measurement completely
insensitive to that second term.

>
> And GEOMETRY was the basis for the development of such (apparently) simple formula.
>
> But the 1/2 factor was ARTIFICIALLY INTRODUCED for the reasons I explained above.
>
> I can't follow dealing with ILLUSTRATED ASSHOLES (good for nothing).
>
> And STOP LYING, FUCKING RETARDED!
>
> I clearly wrote KE² = E² - (m₀c²)² = (pc)², not KE = E - m₀c²
>
>
> But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and
> distorting other people's saying because
> it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.
>
> The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.
>

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and
>> distorting other people's saying because
>> it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.
>>
>> The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.
>>
>

Speaking of HATERS, it’s so fun that you blast people as liars, cheaters,
distorted, genetic garbage, and scumbags, while making a string of silly
physics and algebra mistakes, and while insisting that you have made no
mistakes at all, just to vent a bunch of bile and general misanthropic
disdain built up in a forty year engineering career that you can’t shake
loose from.

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

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and
> >> distorting other people's saying because
> >> it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.
> >>
> >> The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.
> >>
> >
> Speaking of HATERS, it’s so fun that you blast people as liars, cheaters,
> distorted, genetic garbage, and scumbags, while making a string of silly
> physics and algebra mistakes, and while insisting that you have made no
> mistakes at all, just to vent a bunch of bile and general misanthropic
> disdain built up in a forty year engineering career that you can’t shake
> loose from.

Well, let's talk with the truth.

You shouldn't take me seriously, Bodkin, specially my strings of insults.

Actually, it's for me a way to practice English. Also, attacking is better than defending.
Anyone know this: politics, war, business, etc.

Do you know that the first words that immigrants want to know are insults? You can fact-check it.

Look at different characters here: the poor JanPB behaves as if he's forbidden by religion to insult, so resort to downplaying
people about knowledge; Moroney is close to JanPB, but being more loose. Dono is the fucking rabid chihuahua, and behaves
as such due to his impressive inferiority complex. He's one of the most inarticulate members here. Dork is dangerously lethal
with his "unborn wishes", but he claims that he's tired of replying to retired engineers (he's silly and inarticulate too).
You are one special case: bla bla bla bla bla bla....., in order to show off your erudition (borrowed from the 100+ books). But it
cost a lot to make you to lose your temper, and it's possible when I go to the supreme engineers shit (what did they to you?).

I have no issues with my past as an engineer, as life was more than generous with me (and probably undeservedly). But physics
is somehow my soft spot, and I don't agree with much of what happened in the last 100 years. That's opposed to my admiration
about HOW the mankind managed to get out of the darkness by Middle Ages to Newton-Maxwell-Kirchoff physics.

Just the title: "Mathematical principles of natural philosophy", by Newton, makes my admiration to those in the past who drove us
here. But, even more than Newton, the life and doings of Kepler (the giant Kepler) make me wonder HOW HE COULD DO WHAT HE DID.

I'm drifting a little bit but, to make it short: XX century publicly known physicists are, for me, mostly opportunistic SOB. I have to dig
DEEP to find real heroes, unrecognized scientists that, without their contribution, the "primma donnas" wouldn't have existed.

So, I have a problem with such figures (primma donnas), either in the history of physics OR at this forum. And man, I have to tell you
that there are more here than out there.

To finish, and correlate my coherence of thought in the last 3 years (with 2 years hiatus): I hate ICONS as I hate TOTEMS. No difference
for me. And if I have the chance to challenge any icon or any totem (topic, paradigm) I'll not hesitate.

I know that I'm good at math, physics, EE, etc. Not a genius, but good enough. And I don't just talk. I prove myself capable on any subject
by doing the math and calculations. If the topic exceed my current ability, I don't mess with it. A rule that guided my life.

For instance, thanks to the fucker and Mercury, I found myself involved in calculations about NEWTONIAN celestial mechanics. Something
that I always wanted to get involved with, but didn't have the drive or the time to get into. Regarding EE, I upgrade a thin layer of knowledge
periodically, as I keep receiving several online journals, but in the last years that subject has lost its appeal to me.

I hope that you may understand me better with this post. And about misanthropy, I publicly declared myself being as such many times.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > KE = 1/2 m v² was a FUCKING CONVENTION, so d/dt (1 /2 m v²) = VIS VIVA = m.v

> Well, plus the fact that without the factor of 2, the conservation of
> mechanical energy E=T+U would not hold in a closed system. Try it for a
> falling object where U=mgh.
>
> Now, you could redefine U to be 2mgh, but then the work-energy theorem goes wrong.

What you wrote is a matter of interpretation of standards and conventions. Since the renormalization
of several systems of units since 1870 until 1910, approximately, when MKS system was defined, the
most used system was the cgs system, even well into the 1920's.

This site and the corresponding to MKS system tell a very interesting history (why PI appeared everywhere, for instance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%80%93second_system_of_units

One thing that both systems share, about mechanics, is the following set:

v = dx/dt (definition of velocity
F = m d²x/dt² (Newton's second law of motion)
E = ∫ F dx (energy defined in terms of work)

FIRST ROUND

E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²

SECOND ROUND

F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)

E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v

You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)

E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).

If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it and Planck didn't find it with his KE² = E² - (m₀c²)².

Or IS IT that Planck just INVENTED another form to express the energy of a body under inertial motion, like he did with his "h"?

KE: Kinetic Energy: Energy resulting from motion (by dictionary).

So, you have

E1: energy defined in terms of work, either by moving a weight F along a path x, in increments F. dx (or lifting the weight by dh;dz
Trap: if the movement is horizontal, the work is wasted and never recovered.. If the movement is vertical, the work has been stored
in the gravitational field as POTENTIAL energy. But the formula gives 1/2 m.v², which is kinetical. So, E1 can be KE or -U.

E2: energy defined in terms of motion of inertia m at an speed v. The formula gives E2 = p.v, which is EXCLUSIVELY KE.

Where is the trap? I'm confused, really. Don't forget that I'm RELEARNING this subtleties in newtonian mechanics after 50 years.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 4:33:27 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> FIRST ROUND
>
> E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
>
> SECOND ROUND
>
> F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
>
> E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v
>
> You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
>
> E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
>
> If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it

You don't find it because you are a cretin: v is not constant, so it doesn't come out from under the integral , so your ∫ v dp = p.v is yet another one of your cretinisms. Thank you for the entertainment, keep it up dumbestfuck!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:55:30 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> But none of you, HATERS, can do shit without lying, cheating and
>>>> distorting other people's saying because
>>>> it's on you relativistic DNA = genetic garbage.
>>>>
>>>> The world deserves better beings than you both, scumbags.
>>>>
>>>
>> Speaking of HATERS, it’s so fun that you blast people as liars, cheaters,
>> distorted, genetic garbage, and scumbags, while making a string of silly
>> physics and algebra mistakes, and while insisting that you have made no
>> mistakes at all, just to vent a bunch of bile and general misanthropic
>> disdain built up in a forty year engineering career that you can’t shake
>> loose from.
>
> Well, let's talk with the truth.
>
> You shouldn't take me seriously, Bodkin, specially my strings of insults.
>
> Actually, it's for me a way to practice English. Also, attacking is better than defending.
> Anyone know this: politics, war, business, etc.
>
> Do you know that the first words that immigrants want to know are
> insults? You can fact-check it.
>
> Look at different characters here: the poor JanPB behaves as if he's
> forbidden by religion to insult, so resort to downplaying
> people about knowledge; Moroney is close to JanPB, but being more loose.
> Dono is the fucking rabid chihuahua, and behaves
> as such due to his impressive inferiority complex. He's one of the most
> inarticulate members here. Dork is dangerously lethal
> with his "unborn wishes", but he claims that he's tired of replying to
> retired engineers (he's silly and inarticulate too).
> You are one special case: bla bla bla bla bla bla....., in order to show
> off your erudition (borrowed from the 100+ books). But it
> cost a lot to make you to lose your temper, and it's possible when I go
> to the supreme engineers shit (what did they to you?).
>
> I have no issues with my past as an engineer, as life was more than
> generous with me (and probably undeservedly). But physics
> is somehow my soft spot, and I don't agree with much of what happened in
> the last 100 years. That's opposed to my admiration
> about HOW the mankind managed to get out of the darkness by Middle Ages to
> Newton-Maxwell-Kirchoff physics.
>
> Just the title: "Mathematical principles of natural philosophy", by
> Newton, makes my admiration to those in the past who drove us
> here. But, even more than Newton, the life and doings of Kepler (the
> giant Kepler) make me wonder HOW HE COULD DO WHAT HE DID.
>
> I'm drifting a little bit but, to make it short: XX century publicly
> known physicists are, for me, mostly opportunistic SOB. I have to dig
> DEEP to find real heroes, unrecognized scientists that, without their
> contribution, the "primma donnas" wouldn't have existed.
>
> So, I have a problem with such figures (primma donnas), either in the
> history of physics OR at this forum. And man, I have to tell you
> that there are more here than out there.
>
> To finish, and correlate my coherence of thought in the last 3 years
> (with 2 years hiatus): I hate ICONS as I hate TOTEMS. No difference
> for me. And if I have the chance to challenge any icon or any totem
> (topic, paradigm) I'll not hesitate.
>
> I know that I'm good at math, physics, EE, etc. Not a genius, but good
> enough. And I don't just talk. I prove myself capable on any subject
> by doing the math and calculations. If the topic exceed my current
> ability, I don't mess with it. A rule that guided my life.
>
> For instance, thanks to the fucker and Mercury, I found myself involved
> in calculations about NEWTONIAN celestial mechanics. Something
> that I always wanted to get involved with, but didn't have the drive or
> the time to get into. Regarding EE, I upgrade a thin layer of knowledge
> periodically, as I keep receiving several online journals, but in the
> last years that subject has lost its appeal to me.
>
> I hope that you may understand me better with this post. And about
> misanthropy, I publicly declared myself being as such many times.
>
>
>
>

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

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > FIRST ROUND
> >
> > E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
> >
> > SECOND ROUND
> >
> > F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
> >
> > E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v
> >
> > You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
> >
> > E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
> >
> > If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it

> You don't find it because you are a cretin: v is not constant, so it doesn't come out from under the integral , so your ∫ v dp = p.v is yet another one of your cretinisms. Thank you for the entertainment, keep it up dumbestfuck!

RIGHT ON TIME, IMBECILE! I left it served waiting for you to bit the bait and you did. LOL!
I manage you as I fucking want! I owe you, reptilian lifeform.

Check this out, using the Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem:

E = {lim v --> c} ∫ v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v d(mv) = ∫ {lim v --> c} (v² . dm + m v dv) = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc

E = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc

If you want your fucking E = mc² , prove that dc = 0, giant lizard!

And you CAN'T. Nobody CAN'T, so they resorted to FIX THE VALUE OF c ADOPTING BY CONSENSUSfucking number

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > FIRST ROUND
> > >
> > > E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
> > >
> > > SECOND ROUND
> > >
> > > F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
> > >
> > > E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v
> > >
> > > You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
> > >
> > > E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
> > >
> > > If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it
>
> > You don't find it because you are a cretin: v is not constant, so it doesn't come out from under the integral , so your ∫ v dp = p.v is yet another one of your cretinisms. Thank you for the entertainment, keep it up dumbestfuck!
> RIGHT ON TIME, IMBECILE! I left it served waiting for you to bit the bait and you did. LOL!
> I manage you as I fucking want! I owe you, reptilian lifeform.
>
> Check this out, using the Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem:
>
> E = {lim v --> c} ∫ v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v d(mv) = ∫ {lim v --> c} (v² . dm + m v dv) = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc
>
> E = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc
>
> If you want your fucking E = mc² , prove that dc = 0, giant lizard!

And you CAN'T. Nobody CAN'T, so they resorted to FIX THE VALUE OF c ADOPTING BY CONSENSUS a fucking number: 299792458 m/s.

Because experimental results measuring c during 30 years yield a variation of +/- 115 over 299792350 m/s.

But the speed of light IS NOT CONSTANT, so E = mc² IS FALSE!

And you can't say shit about this reality, documented at right scientific institutions. So, "fix the data to FIT the sacred equation", BIMP said.

Cretin, imbecile giant lizard.

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:18:36 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > FIRST ROUND
> > > >
> > > > E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
> > > >
> > > > SECOND ROUND
> > > >
> > > > F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
> > > >
> > > > E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v
> > > >
> > > > You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
> > > >
> > > > E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
> > > >
> > > > If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it
> >
> > > You don't find it because you are a cretin: v is not constant, so it doesn't come out from under the integral , so your ∫ v dp = p.v is yet another one of your cretinisms. Thank you for the entertainment, keep it up dumbestfuck!
> > RIGHT ON TIME, IMBECILE! I left it served waiting for you to bit the bait and you did. LOL!
> > I manage you as I fucking want! I owe you, reptilian lifeform.
> >
> > Check this out, using the Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem:
> >
> > E = {lim v --> c} ∫ v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v d(mv) = ∫ {lim v --> c} (v² . dm + m v dv) = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc
> >
> > E = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc
> >
> > If you want your fucking E = mc² , prove that dc = 0, giant lizard!
> And you CAN'T. Nobody CAN'T, so they resorted to FIX THE VALUE OF c ADOPTING BY CONSENSUS a fucking number: 299792458 m/s.
>
> Because experimental results measuring c during 30 years yield a variation of +/- 115 over 299792350 m/s.
>
> But the speed of light IS NOT CONSTANT, so E = mc² IS FALSE!
>
> And you can't say shit about this reality, documented at right scientific institutions. So, "fix the data to FIT the sacred equation", BIMP said.
>
> Cretin, imbecile giant lizard.

By the way,

E =∫ c² dm + ∫ m c dc = 3/2 mc² (Twice 1905 Hasenhorl's value).

Einstein the CHEATER! Always changing values by multiplying by two and making 3/4 = 1 or making -1/3 = + 1.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:11:43 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz piled yet another imbecility:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > FIRST ROUND
> > >
> > > E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
> > >
> > > SECOND ROUND
> > >
> > > F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
> > >
> > > E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt = ∫ v dp = p.v
> > >
> > > You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
> > >
> > > E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
> > >
> > > If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it
>
> > You don't find it because you are a cretin: v is not constant, so it doesn't come out from under the integral , so your ∫ v dp = p.v is yet another one of your cretinisms. Thank you for the entertainment, keep it up dumbestfuck!

> Check this out, using the Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem:
>
> E = {lim v --> c} ∫ v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v dp = ∫ {lim v --> c} v d(mv) = ∫ {lim v --> c} (v² . dm + m v dv) = ∫ c² . dm + ∫ m c dc
>

Nice imbecility you added in order to cover up yopur prior imbecility. Keep piling them up, dumbestfuck! You are unraveling rather nicely.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:35:26 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz piled up yet another cretinism:

> By the way,
>
> E =∫ c² dm + ∫ m c dc = 3/2 mc² (Twice 1905 Hasenhorl's value).
>
Only you will post such a cretinism. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 7:18:36 PM UTC-8, odious kapoRichard Hertz wrote:
> But the speed of light IS NOT CONSTANT, so E = mc² IS FALSE!
>
Frothing at the mouth again, odious kapo?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:48:43 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> KE = 1/2 m v² was a FUCKING CONVENTION, so d/dt (1 /2 m v²) = VIS VIVA = m.v
>
>> Well, plus the fact that without the factor of 2, the conservation of
>> mechanical energy E=T+U would not hold in a closed system. Try it for a
>> falling object where U=mgh.
>>
>> Now, you could redefine U to be 2mgh, but then the work-energy theorem goes wrong.
>
> What you wrote is a matter of interpretation of standards and
> conventions. Since the renormalization
> of several systems of units since 1870 until 1910, approximately, when
> MKS system was defined, the
> most used system was the cgs system, even well into the 1920's.
>
> This site and the corresponding to MKS system tell a very interesting
> history (why PI appeared everywhere, for instance).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre%E2%80%93gram%E2%80%93second_system_of_units
>
> One thing that both systems share, about mechanics, is the following set:
>
> v = dx/dt (definition of velocity
> F = m d²x/dt² (Newton's second law of motion)
> E = ∫ F dx (energy defined in terms of work)
>
> FIRST ROUND
>
> E = ∫ m d²x/dt² dx = ∫ m dv/dt dx = ∫ m dv dx/dt = ∫ m v dv = 1/2 m.v²
>
> SECOND ROUND
>
> F = m d²x/dt² = d(mv)/dt = dp/dt (Newton's ORIGINAL second law of motion)
>
> E = ∫ F dx = ∫ dp/dt dx = ∫ dp dx/dt

There’s the sloppy calculus.

Look, this should be obvious. An integral is the area under a function,
right? So take a constant force which produces a constant increase in
momentum. The triangular shape of the function is what produces the 1/2. Do
the integral graphically if you have to.

> = ∫ v dp = p.v
>
> You have two equations for E (as energy in terms of work), equal in both
> cgs and MKS systems of unit (erg or joules)
>
> E = 1/2 m.v² = p.v --> p = 1/2 m.v (in order to make them EQUAL).
>
> If you can find the error, please tell me. I don't find it and Planck
> didn't find it with his KE² = E² - (m₀c²)².
>
> Or IS IT that Planck just INVENTED another form to express the energy of
> a body under inertial motion, like he did with his "h"?
>
> KE: Kinetic Energy: Energy resulting from motion (by dictionary).
>
> So, you have
>
> E1: energy defined in terms of work, either by moving a weight F along a
> path x, in increments F. dx (or lifting the weight by dh;dz
> Trap: if the movement is horizontal, the work is wasted and never
> recovered. If the movement is vertical, the work has been stored
> in the gravitational field as POTENTIAL energy. But the formula
> gives 1/2 m.v², which is kinetical. So, E1 can be KE or -U.
>
> E2: energy defined in terms of motion of inertia m at an speed v. The
> formula gives E2 = p.v, which is EXCLUSIVELY KE.
>
> Where is the trap? I'm confused, really. Don't forget that I'm RELEARNING
> this subtleties in newtonian mechanics after 50 years.
>
>
>
>
>
>

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