What does the mass energy Eo=mc² correspond to?

Just as the energy of velocity corresponds to the energy due to
displacement in space, the energy of mass corresponds to the energy due to
displacement in time.

As a result, we get: E=mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) since
1/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)=sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

We can have the same reasoning with momentum.

p=mc and p=mVr ---> p=mc.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) or p=mc/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?BlcyucaCiQM8GNUTKHfc6xTJA9I@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes : il y a des situations de violence."
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=BlcyucaCiQM8GNUTKHfc6xTJA9I@jntp>

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:31:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> We can have the same reasoning with momentum.
>
> p=mc and p=mVr ---> p=mc.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) or p=mc/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>

No, idiot
p=mv/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Le 14/06/2022 à 21:53, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:31:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> We can have the same reasoning with momentum.
>>
>> p=mc and p=mVr ---> p=mc.sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) or p=mc/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>>
>
>
> No, idiot
> p=mv/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

You are right.

With momentum, p=m.Vr and if Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) then
p=m.[Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)]

R.H.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:

<diversions snipped>

We are still at this point:

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> One cannot synchronize watches placed in two different places in the
> universe (even in a schoolyard, or a railway network).

Yes you can.

Tell me, can we Einstein synchronize (esynch) two watches ?
Still no answer? Stumped you again!

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 00:54:43 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> <diversions snipped>
>
> We are still at this point:
>
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > One cannot synchronize watches placed in two different places in the
> > universe (even in a schoolyard, or a railway network).
>
> Yes you can.
>
> Tell me, can we Einstein synchronize (esynch) two watches ?

Of course not. You can only synchronize with
the Holy Procedure 2 clocks immobiile wrt each
other in an inertial frame. That doesn't happen.

Le 15/06/2022 à 00:54, rotchm a écrit :
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> <diversions snipped>
>
> We are still at this point:
>
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 3:27:17 PM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> One cannot synchronize watches placed in two different places in the
>> universe (even in a schoolyard, or a railway network).
>
> Yes you can.
>
> Tell me, can we Einstein synchronize (esynch) two watches ?
> Still no answer? Stumped you again!

No, we can not.

Let's take solar time as an example.

It is assumed that on March 21, for example, it will be 6 a.m. when the
sun rises, noon when it passes south, and 6 a.m. at sunset.

And we're going to set all the clocks in my little village like that.

It worked very well in the old days, and that's how it was done.

Today, such a synchronization procedure would be laughable.

Well, it SHOULD (if one understands what one is doing) the same with the
theory of relativity.

Einstein's article begins with a startling error. He believes he can
synchronize two watches placed in very different places, and does NOT KNOW
that there is in the universe (the same for the roundness of the earth for
the solar time) a trick which makes the watches absolutely out of tune :
universal anisochrony.

I'm amazed that in 2022 NO ONE ever uses that word.

As if it didn't exist.

R.H.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:47:08 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 15/06/2022 à 00:54, rotchm a écrit :

> > Tell me, can we Einstein synchronize (esynch) two watches ?
> > Still no answer? Stumped you again!

> No, we can not.

Your answer has been logged.

> Let's take solar time as an example.

This is not the topic. Stay focused. We were discussing esynch.

> It is assumed that on March 21, for example, it will be 6 a.m. when the
> sun rises, noon when it passes south, and 6 a.m. at sunset.
> And we're going to set all the clocks in my little village like that.

That is not esynch. Stay on topic.

> It worked very well in the old days, and that's how it was done.
> Today, such a synchronization procedure would be laughable.

Correct, but off topic.

> Einstein's article begins with a startling error. He believes he can
> synchronize two watches placed in very different places,

You said that already by answering "no" to my above question.
You are being redundant.

> and does NOT KNOW
> that there is in the universe (the same for the roundness of the earth for
> the solar time) a trick which makes the watches absolutely out of tune :
> universal anisochrony.

Irrelevant to esynch.

> I'm amazed that in 2022 NO ONE ever uses that word.

Indeed, you are NO ONE. You got that right!

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 5:01:35 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 7:47:08 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 15/06/2022 à 00:54, rotchm a écrit :
>
> > > Tell me, can we Einstein synchronize (esynch) two watches ?
> > > Still no answer? Stumped you again!
>
> > No, we can not.
> Your answer has been logged.
> > Let's take solar time as an example.
> This is not the topic. Stay focused. We were discussing esynch.
> > It is assumed that on March 21, for example, it will be 6 a.m. when the
> > sun rises, noon when it passes south, and 6 a.m. at sunset.
> > And we're going to set all the clocks in my little village like that.
> That is not esynch. Stay on topic.
> > It worked very well in the old days, and that's how it was done.
> > Today, such a synchronization procedure would be laughable.
> Correct, but off topic.
> > Einstein's article begins with a startling error. He believes he can
> > synchronize two watches placed in very different places,

What do you mean by synchronized?
Time goes on everywhere in the universe with all frames.
Everything in the universe shares its BB age forever.

Mitchell Raemsch

> You said that already by answering "no" to my above question.
> You are being redundant.
> > and does NOT KNOW
> > that there is in the universe (the same for the roundness of the earth for
> > the solar time) a trick which makes the watches absolutely out of tune :
> > universal anisochrony.
> Irrelevant to esynch.
> > I'm amazed that in 2022 NO ONE ever uses that word.
> Indeed, you are NO ONE. You got that right!

Le 16/06/2022 à 20:15, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> What do you mean by synchronized?
> Time goes on everywhere in the universe with all frames.
> Everything in the universe shares its BB age forever.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

No that's not true.
Let's just take two twins and quickly accelerate the first one to make it
get a constant speed of 0.8c relative to the other, and make it go through
a huge circle on which we will see it move for 30 years and return to its
initial position.
We know today, and on this there should be unanimity, that when the star
twin returns, he will be only 18 years old, not 30.

In his repository, time has passed more slowly.

And on this, scientists calculate times well.

Which is strange, moreover, because for the rest, they don't understand
anything at all.

They are convinced, for example, that in the cosmonaut's frame of
reference, the distances traveled have shrunk, and that he himself has
traveled a shorter path.

The reverse is true.
1. First, this subject has not gone through anything at all in its
repository.

2. and it is, for him, the earth which describes a great circle whose
radius is R'=R/sqrt(1-v²/c²). WE therefore see that the distance
traveled by the earth, for him, is GREATER.

But I have already said too much, and I know that even the most keen on
the atheory of arelativity are already confused by what they say
(honestly) incorrect.

However, I am right.

Je vous remercie de votre écoute.

R.H.