Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Why relativity is a =?UTF-8?B?cHNldWRvc2NpZW5jZT8gRmlyc3QgYXBwcm9h?=
 =?UTF-8?B?Y2gu?=
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 10:01:30 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <15e4cf6e201f67cda9e9475b5b9577b1@www.novabbs.com>
References: <d8b52c0ad27618036611e0704e58e607@www.novabbs.com> <vbp5j0$2taov$1@dont-email.me> <dad1eb8634e36c05d20669465aa5a1b2@www.novabbs.com> <572db43d3ebd42800ac6941266f53931@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1648360"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="ovbq/l84ala/wLhXSqScU9GOSIzjukMrxJB27Aq7eyg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$KPQrPgWpduUY1VuqWsindO31p8TiG2T7/XDBP3ClBEMwsU31BevmW
X-Rslight-Posting-User: c1a997029c70f718720f72156b7d7f56416caf7c
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7030
Lines: 133

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 0:35:49 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> More additions to my OP about the pseudoscience that relativity is.
>
> Remember MASS INCREASE due to inertial velocity v>0?
>
> This one is also INDIGNANT and SHAMEFUL.
>
> In the 1905 paper (§ 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron),
> Einstein violated any concept of relativity when he MERGED BOTH
> REFERENCE FRAMES INTO ONE, to obtain his incredible assertion that mass
> of one electron increased with velocity v.
>
> This DIABOLIC LIE was supported increasingly over the next 90 YEARS,
> till mid 1990s, when the relativistic community started to ABANDON THIS
> IDEA (90 years of idiocy and counting). Thanks to the relentless work of
> prestigious relativists (like the Russian Okun), MOST OF THE COMMUNITY
> switched to the concept of increase of kinetic energy, accepting that
> MASS is INVARIABLE.
>
> So, instead of thinking AND USING for 90 years the concept of mass
> increase under inertial motion:
>
> M = Mo/√(1 - v²/c²)
>
> relativists switched (the majority of them, EVEN TODAY) to this
> expression of KE increase:
>
>
> KE = (1/√(1 - v²/c²) - 1) Mo, which doesn't include THE FAKE VALUE Mo of
> any mass at (relative) rest.
>
> This was done, and still is done, WHILE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE IDEA ABOUT
> WHAT MASS IS. Even less in 1905,
> when Einstein plagiarized Poincaré by using TWO MASSES FOR AN ELECTRON:
> Longitudinal and transversal masses.
>
> I don't know what moral stature and lack of intellectual integrity had
> MANY GENERATIONS OF PHYSICISTS to support this STUPID IDEA FOR ALMOST A
> CENTURY.

Hi, Richard!

I sort of disagree with your history. The concept of relativistic mass,
held on for as long as it did because it was a USEFUL concept for
explaining various sorts of experimental observations. It was Thomson
who
introduced the concept of "electromagnetic mass" in 1881, when he
observed
variations in the apparent mass of electrons in his cathode ray tube
experiments, and Thomson and Searle were later to predict that this
velocity-dependent mass should become infinite as the body approaches
the
speed of light with respect to the aether. In an alternative theory of
the
behavior of "electrons" as they were then understood, Lorentz also
proposed
an increase in the apparent mass. Electromagnetic mass was conceptually
separated into "transverse" and "longitudinal" mass, while Newtonian
mass
was "real" mass. In a competing theory, Max Abraham gave a prediction of
the mass-dependent behavior of electrons that was distinct from the
Lorentz
prediction.

Experimentally, there was little to distinguish between these theories
until Kaufmann began studies with Becquerel rays, which reached
velocities
up to 0.9c. It was Kaufmann's experiments that necessitated the
separation
of total mass into longitudinal and transverse mass components. There
was
a lot of back-and-forth going on here between Searle, Kaufmann, Abraham
and
Starke, but the overall consensus was that Abraham's theory gave number
that
were closer to the observed results than Lorentz' theory.

In 1904, Bucherer and Langevin also independently proposed theories that
gave results that appeared more in accord with experiment than Lorentz'.
In contrast to Lorentz, the Bucherer-Lorentz theories both proposed that
transverse electromagnetic mass should be proportional to (1-β^2)^(1/3).

In 1905, Einstein proposed an alternate explanation for the mass
increase
which was not tied to any particular theory of electron structure and
which
did not consider mass as being intrinsically electromagnetic in origin.
This section from Wiki is mostly my writing:
https://tinyurl.com/yu3k29tn
Einstein's arguments were heuristic in nature, and he tried various
times
in the coming years to convert his heuristic arguments into a broadly
definitive proof. Einstein gave a formula for mass increase that was
essentially the same as Lorentz', although the theoretical underpinnings
was quite different.

So in 1905, we had three distinct predictions for the increase of
transverse electromagnetic mass with velocity. In 1907, Planck
re-analyzed
the available data and concluded that no definitive conclusion could be
reached to distinguish between the available theories.

Using improved experimental techniques, Bucherer in 1908, Wolz in 1909,
and Hupka in 1909 began accumulating results that were more consistent
with
the Lorentz-Einstein formula than with Abraham's, although even in 1909,
Hupka refused to consider his results as being definitive.

It wasn't until Neumann's experiments in 1914 and Guye/Lavanchy's
experiments in 1915 that the accuracy of experimental results were
considered as definitively favoring the Lorentz-Einstein formula over
Abraham's.

==========================================================================
Basically, what I am saying is that the concept of velocity-dependent
mass
has a long history independent of the theory of relativity.
==========================================================================

> DEGENERACY OF THOUGHT AND GENERALIZED INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION OF THOSE
> WHO WANTED TO KEEP BELONGING TO THE RELATIVISTIC HERD (ANYTHING FOR A
> JOB, MONEY AND PRIVILEGES), BUT THESE CONFLICTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE
> DEATH OF PHYSICS AS AN HONORABLE SCIENCE.
>
> Today, physics (almost on the entire of branches using relativity) is
> rejected by the technological world, which is replacing it as a science
> of value. Relativity has found shelter on two or three USELESS BRANCHES,
> like particle physics, cosmology and astrophysics, which DON'T PROVIDE A
> SINGLE THING OF VALUE TO THE SOCIETY AND REAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
> SINCE MID 1960s.
>
> Shame on PSEUDOSCIENTISTS. They don't have a single ounce of moral and
> integrity.