I make this new thread to emphasize the ELEMENTARY FALLACIES at
plain sight on Einstein's paper about m=E/c² (2 1/2 pages, 800+ words).

Quoting EXACTLY what Einstein wrote on his Sep. 1905 paper, AND rearranging the SIMPLE FORMULAE.

******************************************
SECOND PAGE, 1:

"The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity)
with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission
of light E₁ or H₁ respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (ξ, η, ζ) respectively,
then by employing the relation given above we obtain

E₀ = E₁ + L/2 + L/2 = E₁ + L

H₀ = H₁ + L/2 (1 - v/c cos θ)/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)] + L/2 (1 + v/c cos θ)/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)] = H₁ + L 1/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)]
******************************************

Rearranging:

E₀ - E₁ = ΔE = L ; Einstein wrote that the change in the energy change of the body at relative rest DECREASED by L when light is turned ON.

H₀ - H₁ = ΔH ≈ L + 1/2 (L/c²) v² ≈ ΔE + 1/2 (L/c²) v² ; He DISGUISED the energy change PERCEIVED in the moving frame, seen in this way.

******************************************
SECOND PAGE, 2:

"By subtraction we obtain from these equations"

"H₀ − E₀ - (H₁ − E₁) = L {(1/√(1 − v²/c²)− 1)}"
******************************************

Rearranging:

H₀ − H₁ - (E₀ - E₁) = ΔH - ΔE ≈ 1/2 (L/c²) v² ; Here, using 408 words (English), he HIDES the final result of a "look-alike" expression of KE.

Now, he uses ANOTHER 325 words (English), to CONVINCE everyone that such value (ΔH - ΔE) REPRESENTS the transformation of
mass (taken from the body at relative rest) into KINETIC ENERGY, where mass m adopted the form m = L/c².

And Einstein did write such paper, drawing such conclusions, by SUBTRACTING energy changes in TWO different reference frames,
one of them moving inertially with v speed from the other.

PROBLEMS:

1) At the end, he affirms: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²".
NOT PROVEN that mass of the body at relative rest DIMINISHES by L/c². Should have included the initial mass M of the body
in his calculation. He couldn't do it, because from his June 1905 SR paper, he was UNABLE to obtain one single expression of
mass, when plagiarize Lorentz's LONGITUDINAL and TRANSVERSAL masses.

Had he used those expressions from SR, he would NEVER have achieved the final result on his CHILDISH Sep. 1905 paper.

So, he resorted to the elementary circular argument of "begging the question" or "Petitio Principii" fallacy. He KNEW he
failed, everyone knew that the paper was pure crap, and Einstein tried SIX MORE TIMES in 37 years to correct it, giving up in 1942.

2) Not proven that the body at relative rest gives mass m for its conversion into pure energy (under the form of KE?, REALLY?)
And, using an approximation due to the truncation of the McLaurin series (expansion of Gamma Factor) to the first TWO TERMS,
such result can be used only for v << c (error in respect to real Y factor increase rapidly for v > 0.1c).

3) The generalization of m=L/c² for ANY MASS AT REST is an ABOMINATION in physics and chemistry. Only accepted around 1920
to SOLVE problems in chemistry regarding Atomic Weight and other issues, introducing the measurement in ElectronVolts (eV)
even to NON CHARGED PARTICLES, like the neutron.

As of today, the use of m=E/c² (even using c=1) is a done deal. But it's AN ADOPTED SYMBOLISM, like the value of c.

Not proven, MATHEMATICALLY, that m=E/c² holds THE SECRET OF NATURE. 99.99% of mass is IRREDUCTIBLE (like electrons).

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 1:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I make this new thread to emphasize the ELEMENTARY FALLACIES at
> plain sight on Einstein's paper about m=E/c² (2 1/2 pages, 800+ words).
>
>
> Quoting EXACTLY what Einstein wrote on his Sep. 1905 paper, AND rearranging the SIMPLE FORMULAE.
>
> ******************************************
> SECOND PAGE, 1:
>
> "The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity)
> with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission
> of light E₁ or H₁ respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (ξ, η, ζ) respectively,
> then by employing the relation given above we obtain
>
> E₀ = E₁ + L/2 + L/2 = E₁ + L
>
> H₀ = H₁ + L/2 (1 - v/c cos θ)/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)] + L/2 (1 + v/c cos θ)/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)] = H₁ + L 1/[1/√(1 − v²/c²)]
> ******************************************
>
> Rearranging:
>
> E₀ - E₁ = ΔE = L ; Einstein wrote that the change in the energy change of the body at relative rest DECREASED by L when light is turned ON.
>
> H₀ - H₁ = ΔH ≈ L + 1/2 (L/c²) v² ≈ ΔE + 1/2 (L/c²) v² ; He DISGUISED the energy change PERCEIVED in the moving frame, seen in this way.
>
>
> ******************************************
> SECOND PAGE, 2:
>
> "By subtraction we obtain from these equations"
>
> "H₀ − E₀ - (H₁ − E₁) = L {(1/√(1 − v²/c²)− 1)}"
> ******************************************
>
> Rearranging:
>
> H₀ − H₁ - (E₀ - E₁) = ΔH - ΔE ≈ 1/2 (L/c²) v² ; Here, using 408 words (English), he HIDES the final result of a "look-alike" expression of KE.
>
> Now, he uses ANOTHER 325 words (English), to CONVINCE everyone that such value (ΔH - ΔE) REPRESENTS the transformation of
> mass (taken from the body at relative rest) into KINETIC ENERGY, where mass m adopted the form m = L/c².
>
> And Einstein did write such paper, drawing such conclusions, by SUBTRACTING energy changes in TWO different reference frames,
> one of them moving inertially with v speed from the other.
>
> PROBLEMS:
>
> 1) At the end, he affirms: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²".
> NOT PROVEN that mass of the body at relative rest DIMINISHES by L/c².. Should have included the initial mass M of the body
> in his calculation. He couldn't do it, because from his June 1905 SR paper, he was UNABLE to obtain one single expression of
> mass, when plagiarize Lorentz's LONGITUDINAL and TRANSVERSAL masses.
>
> Had he used those expressions from SR, he would NEVER have achieved the final result on his CHILDISH Sep. 1905 paper.
>
> So, he resorted to the elementary circular argument of "begging the question" or "Petitio Principii" fallacy. He KNEW he
> failed, everyone knew that the paper was pure crap, and Einstein tried SIX MORE TIMES in 37 years to correct it, giving up in 1942.
>
> 2) Not proven that the body at relative rest gives mass m for its conversion into pure energy (under the form of KE?, REALLY?)
> And, using an approximation due to the truncation of the McLaurin series (expansion of Gamma Factor) to the first TWO TERMS,
> such result can be used only for v << c (error in respect to real Y factor increase rapidly for v > 0.1c).
>
> 3) The generalization of m=L/c² for ANY MASS AT REST is an ABOMINATION in physics and chemistry. Only accepted around 1920
> to SOLVE problems in chemistry regarding Atomic Weight and other issues, introducing the measurement in ElectronVolts (eV)
> even to NON CHARGED PARTICLES, like the neutron.
>
> As of today, the use of m=E/c² (even using c=1) is a done deal. But it's AN ADOPTED SYMBOLISM, like the value of c.
>
> Not proven, MATHEMATICALLY, that m=E/c² holds THE SECRET OF NATURE.. 99.99% of mass is IRREDUCTIBLE (like electrons).

A collective measurement of C is an approximation.
According to science uncertainty in measurement is a principle.
Why is science so uncertain?
Where science gets thing's wrong they never want to admit to it.
And they have most things wrong even math.

Mitchell Raemsch

Einstein was well aware of the three papers that Hasenhorl published in the same Annalen der Physik about mass-energy relationship
since 1904. In the last paper, published in Feb. 1905, Hasenhorl proved that there was a MASS GAIN in a CLOSED BLACK BODY, moving
inertially at "v" speed. He obtained, finally, m = 4/3 E/c² as THE MASS gained by the energy enclosed in the black body. This value was
related to the ELECTROMAGNETIC NATURE of such energy, was ACCEPTED by the physics community until mid 1920s, then forgotten.
Many bright scientists were puzzled by the differences with Einstein's paper, in particular Enrico Fermi. He became an ardent defender
of Hasenhorl theory and the 1/3 additional value to m = E/c².

Seven months after the last Hasenhorl correction, Einstein published his Sep. 1905 paper, as a CONTINUATION of the Point § 8. "Transformation of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors" from his June SR paper.

The paper start with the following excerpt, just after the 3rd. Paragraph:

*******************************************************
"With these principles as my basis I deduced inter alia the following result (§ 8):—
Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the system of coordinates (x, y, z), possess the energy l;
let the direction of the ray (the wave-normal) make an angle θ with the axis of x of the system.
If we introduce a new system of co-ordinates (ξ, η, ζ) moving in uniform parallel translation with respect to
the system (x, y, z), and having its origin of coordinates in motion along the axis of x with the velocity v,
then this quantity of light—measured in the system (ξ, η, ζ)— possesses the energy"

l* = l (1 - v/c cos θ)/√(1 − v²/c²)
*******************************************************

It is OBVIOUS that Einstein was following Hasenhorl, but in an OPEN SYSTEM, not an enclosed black body.

He was aware of Hasenhorl approximation for v << c, which allowed him to use terms only up to v²/c².
The first problem was to get rid of the expression v/c cos θ, for which he came with the idea of OPPOSITE TWIN BEAMS OF LIGHT.

In this way, he introduced the PERCEIVED ENERGY at (ξ, η, ζ) with each beam having HALF THE ENERGY and different signs:

H₀ = H₁ + L/2 (1 - v/c cos θ)/√(1 − v²/c²) + L/2 (1 + v/c cos θ)/√(1 − v²/c²) = H₁ + L/√(1 − v²/c²)

Now, using the first two terms of McLaurin series expansion, he obtained:

H₀ = H₁ + L/√(1 − v²/c²) = L + 1/2 (L/c²) v² ---- OR ---- ΔH = H₀ - H₁ = L + 1/2 (L/c²) v²

In this simple way, he set the stage to assert that the energy change at (x,y,z) (without mentioning MASS OF THE OBJECT)
was

ΔE = E₀ - E₁ = L

And finally, express the TOTAL CHANGE OF ENERGY IN TWO FRAMES as:

ΔE - ΔH = - 1/2 (L/c²) v²

There was a sign MINUS in the expression that resembled KE of energy, but nobody cared. Biggest crimes like circular references
and subtracting energy of TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES, moving at relative speed v were forgiven, so.........

The WORST CRIME is that he was let go with the concept that EM radiation has KINETIC ENERGY!

Then, in 1905, the CRETIN openly said that the "Planck's quanta of energy" (A.K.A. Photon) had MASS.

Hasenhorl developed his theory talking all the time about RADIATION PRESSURE (very maxwellian).

Einstein, one year after, and reverse engineering Hasenhorl, talked about the KINETIC ENERGY of RADIATION.

Plagiarists ALWAYS try to avoid direct tracing of his work by changing words, concepts, drawings, colors, semantics, etc.

But a cretin is always a cretin, since young age. Isn't it, Dono? You know these techniques very well.

On 2022-06-17 20:09:13 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> I make this new thread to emphasize the ELEMENTARY FALLACIES at
> plain sight on Einstein's paper about m=E/c² (2 1/2 pages, 800+ words).

In order to avoid repetition, see

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/KZKzhK21mx8/m/UXxw4MU7AwAJ

for earlier discussion about the same.

Mikko

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:15:41 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz came to grips with the fact he's a cretin:

> But a cretin is always a cretin, since young age.

Yep, you sure are, Dick. Especially since you repeat the same cretinisms over and over. Thanks for the entertainment.

I pity the fanatic indoctrinated people, whom have some background in physics and mathematics, that bought the CONVENIENT
NARRATIVE that support E=mc² as the energy CONTENT of any body (particle, whatever) when such body is AT REST.

This extension of a failed thought experiment (approximation), which was based on TWO reference frames in relative inertial motion
at "v" speed TO ANY MASS AT REST in one single mass (v=0) is:

1) UNPROVEN mathematically, hence FALSE. Applying E₀=m₀c² as the energy content at rest of any body of mass m₀ has NO SENSE,
no matter how many people support this stupidity. Yet more, it's a pure sample of cretinism to call it the most important equation in
physics, and attribute it to Einstein. Completely undeserved AND FALSE.

2) The adoption of E₀=m₀c² as the energy content of ANY MASS at rest is fallacious, false and unproven mathematically or in
experimental physics. That such value, in eV or MeV, be applied to IRREDUCIBLE MASSES of particles, charged or not, is ONLY
a fallacious NORMALIZATION, to make a bridge between physics and chemistry. It poses no physical meaning, and only served
to replace cgs or MKS units (gram or kilogram) for a NEW unit (eV), which allowed to ADD mass and energy (using c=1), as it was
done by Chadwick in his 1932 paper about the PROOF of the existence of the neutron. Atomic Weight were mixed with energy (c=1).

3) The stupidity of E₀=m₀c² was hyped paroxistically by Eddington and other proto-astrophysicists to explain, in the early 1920s, the
behavior and evolution of energy of stars, in particular the Sun. It helped to gain confidence in the extensive application of such
formula to stellar evolution, galaxies formation and the Big Bang itself. The rapid "conquest of the mind" of such mediocre scientists
allowed the popularization of E=mc² to other fields, in particular Particle Physics.

But NONE of those "scientists" THEN and NOW can prove the validity of the equation. For them, it's just a CONVENTION that allowed
to play with electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms and molecules in a NORMALIZED WAY (like the constancy of the speed of light).

These AXIOMS allowed to construct the "edifice of physics-chemistry" on a MUDDY GROUND. Laymen, unaware of this, just bought
the FALSE NARRATIVE and, worse yet, took as a sacred truth the FALSE RELATION between E₀=m₀c² and NUCLEAR BOMBS.

4) If anyone think that the above is an EXAGGERATION, it's due mainly to the inability of the collective human mind to UNDERSTAND
the parts that compose the GRAND SYSTEM, whichever be the field at which such GRAND SYSTEM is developed.

It has to be understood through analogies in economy or politics. For instance, I'm completely sure that NO ONE HERE understand
the GRAND SYSTEM behind the dollar as reserve currency and reference for the worldwide economy. But when such FALSE premise
collapse, any time soon, billions of people in the world will walk as zombies thinking "what happened?", "What happened?".

In the same order, the equilibrium of world affairs, based on the design of UNIPOLAR scheme, will be shocked with the end game
of current affairs, and NATIONS (with their population) will wander for long time, looking how to adjust themselves to a MULTIPOLAR
world, where GLOBALIZATION WET DREAM disappeared, cheap stuff evaporated and INDUSTRIAL NATIONALISM has to exist.

Not different in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing), which were developed under unipolarism and
concentration of power. Just as an example: Taiwan's TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co) is the provider of more
than 75% of the chips used in THE ENTIRE WORLD. Even when the final know-how is remotely provided by main developers, who
control from USA, China, Japan, etc. the final steps on silicon wafers, ONE DISRUPTION (China taking Taiwan) will make the world
to collapse for GENERATIONS.

The BIG LIE under which STEM is developed (and its globalization) is on the verge of collapse. And the TSUNAMI will hit even the
CORE of physics and chemistry, which are today designed under USA guidelines.

5) New physics and chemistry (the core of STEM) is waiting its turn to take place and dominance. In that context, E=mc² will be
proven FALSE once for all and FOREVER. Because E=mc² is FALSE, it's a Western CONVENTION, groomed for 90 years and forced
into the THROATS of imbeciles, like many who read this forum's posts. And, finally, einstenianism will be reduced to exist only
on some remnants of the NWO countries (10, with luck). China is patiently waiting HIS TURN to introduce HIS SCIENCE, which is
very far from THE FUCKING RELATIVITY!

For those who didn't believe my previous post. Read some of the 125+ comments (published today).

http://thesaker.is/world-war-3-for-dummies/

CONCLUSIONS: THE FALL OF WESTERN STEM INFRASTRUCTURE (Like relativity poisonous influence in science)

The Great Reset of the world economy is the direct cause of World War 3 – assuming that is what is going on. What can be done about this? From inside the West, little can be done. The only way is to somehow remove Davos from the equation, but that is most likely not going to happen for two reasons: The first one is that the Davos great resetters are too entwined in the western economy and politics. Davos is like an octopus with its arms and suckers inside every country’s elite circles, media, and government. They are too entrenched to be easily removed. The second reason is that the western population is too brainwashed and ignorant. The level of their brainwashing is such that a large part of them actually want to become poor – although they use the word ‘green’ for ‘poor’ because it sounds better. There are, however, some indications that there may be divisions within western elites. Some of them, particularly within the US, may be resisting the primarily Europe-designed Great Reset – but whether this opposition is real or effective remains to be seen.

However, outside the West, there are certain measures that can be taken and must be taken. Some of those measures are drastic and some of them are being done as we speak. Among the measures are the following:

1. The Independents, led by Russia, China, and India, must create a block to isolate themselves from the radioactive West. This isolation must not only be economic, but also political and social. Their economic systems must be divorced from the West and made autonomous. Their cultures and history must be defended against western influences and revisionism. This process appears to be underway.

2. The Independents must immediately ban all western sponsored institutions and NGOs in their countries, regardless of whether they are sponsored by western states or individuals. Furthermore, they must ban all media receiving western sponsorship and strip every school and university of western sponsorship and influence. ******* THIS!! *******

3. They must leave all international institutions up to and possibly including the United Nations because all international bodies are controlled by the West. They must then replace them with new institutions within their block.

4. They must, at some point, declare the dollar and the euro currencies non grata. That means that they should declare default on all debts denominated in these currencies, but not other debts. This will most likely come at a later stage but is inevitable.

This will create a situation where the West will descend into darkness without pulling others down with it – if we manage to escape the nuclear fire.

NOTE: I live South of the West (only 14 countries conform the rotten core of the West, and his worthless education system - Bologna).

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I pity the fanatic indoctrinated people

It is good that you finally realize that you are a crank

On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> For those who didn't believe my previous post. Read some of the 125+ comments (published today).
>
>
> http://thesaker.is/world-war-3-for-dummies/

As if any sane person would listen to anything written on The Saker web page...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/the-saker-blind-loyalty-disguised-as-defiance/#

What a piece of shit pro-Kremlin web site... but you go ahead and suck it all up, Richard, as the bottom-feeder that you are I'm sure that you really enjoy it...

On 2022-06-18 17:24:57 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> 1) UNPROVEN mathematically, hence FALSE.

This is garbage, in particular that "hence". The word "unproven" means
that so far nobody has shown a proof. Maybe someone will. In any case,
a proof merely connects sentence to other sentences. Whether something
is false is an unrelated question about a relation of between sentences
and reality. That kind of questions cannot be answered without knowing
the reality. In the specific case mentioned in head line the reality
was not known at the time. The article argues that there are good reasons
to belive that the inertia of a body depends on its energy. It also
concludes that an experimental test is difficult but not impossible.

Mikko

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 13:40:16 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-18 17:24:57 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > 1) UNPROVEN mathematically, hence FALSE.
> This is garbage, in particular that "hence". The word "unproven" means
> that so far nobody has shown a proof. Maybe someone will. In any case,
> a proof merely connects sentence to other sentences. Whether something
> is false is an unrelated question about a relation of between sentences
> and reality. That kind of questions cannot be answered without knowing
> the reality.

You're of course mistaken, but explaining you some basics
would be a waste of time.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 13:40:16 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-06-18 17:24:57 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>>
>>> 1) UNPROVEN mathematically, hence FALSE.
>> This is garbage, in particular that "hence". The word "unproven" means
>> that so far nobody has shown a proof. Maybe someone will. In any case,
>> a proof merely connects sentence to other sentences. Whether something
>> is false is an unrelated question about a relation of between sentences
>> and reality. That kind of questions cannot be answered without knowing
>> the reality.
>
> You're of course mistaken, but explaining you some basics
> would be a waste of time.

Stop fooling around, Maciej, you are pathetic.

Le 19/06/2022 à 15:38, Python a écrit :
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 13:40:16 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-18 17:24:57 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>>>
>>>> 1) UNPROVEN mathematically, hence FALSE.
>>> This is garbage, in particular that "hence". The word "unproven" means
>>> that so far nobody has shown a proof. Maybe someone will. In any case,
>>> a proof merely connects sentence to other sentences. Whether something
>>> is false is an unrelated question about a relation of between sentences
>>> and reality. That kind of questions cannot be answered without knowing
>>> the reality.
>>
>> You're of course mistaken, but explaining you some basics
>> would be a waste of time.
>
> Stop fooling around, Maciej, you are pathetic.

C'est toi qui est pathétique, Jean-Pierre?

Tu ferais mieux d'apprendre la physique.

R.H.