Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on =?UTF-8?B?bT1FL2NeMg==?=
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:21:09 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <319b49164e2cd6361e49b022b526f97c@www.novabbs.com>
References: <b63aec6ac23c5f03f785a3b342122e74@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="3619454"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$p/FELEpPu8md045kZJ/AQurl0t4x5E45MuTBXXwh2V27gw.dr25MG
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5382
Lines: 116

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 0:35:15 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? (Sept 1905)
>
> Einstein start this paper with an equation derived on his previous paper
> on Electrodynamics (SR). It represents the energy l* of a planar wave of
> light with energy l, as PERCEIVED from a reference frame moving at speed
> v as:
>
> l* = l γ (1 - v cos φ)
>
> where
>
> γ = (1 - v² /c²)^-1/2
> φ; angle of the ray with respect the x-axis.
>
> He propose to use this equation from his previous paper in the following
> way:
>
> A stationary body in the system K has an energy E0.
> The energy of the body perceived in the system k, moving at v speed is
> H0.
>
> The stationary body emit twin beams of light in opposite directions,
> each with energy L/2.
> The energy of the body in the stationary system K, after the emission of
> light, is E1.
>
> E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
>
> The energy of the body, as perceived in in the moving system k, after
> the emission of light, is H1.
>
> H1 = H0 - L/2 γ (1 - v cos φ) - L/2 γ (1 +- v cos φ) = H0 - γ L
>
> Then, Einstein inserts the equation for the difference of the energy
> between  K and k before and after the emission of the twin beam of light
> as:
>
> H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1)
>
> Using a McLaurin expansion of γ for (v/c) << 1
>
> γ = 1 + 1/2 (v/c)² + 3/4  (v/c)⁴ + 15/24  (v/c)⁶ + 105/192  (v/c)⁸ + ..
>
> and dismissing terms higher than the quadratic one, the difference of
> energies between K and k is set as
>
> H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1) ≈  1/2 (L/c)² v²
>
> As the approximation  1/2 (L/c²) v² RESEMBLES the equation of kinetic
> energy IF (L/c²) is taken as MASS (inertia), Einstein jumped to the
> conclusion:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "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."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This conclusion has been criticized by all, starting with Planck in
> 1907. He concluded that this is a fallacy
>
> based on a circular argument (petitio principii), because it starts by
> asserting what he wanted to prove.
>
> The most striking FRAUD is that he didn't prove that the mass of the
> object APPARENTLY diminished by (L/c²).
>
> The only thing that he asserted at the beginning of the mini-paper is
> that the energy of the object changed by L, after the emission of the
> twin beams of light:
>
> E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
>
> Here is the CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (fallacy, lie, fraudulent manipulation):
> He started by ASSUMING that there is a relationship between mass and
> energy on the object as a starting point. He never used, until the end
> of the paper, that the body has a given mass M+ L/c² in the state E0,
> and that bit of mass was lost as energy.
>
> Einstein tried to fix this paper SIX TIMES, giving up in 1942.
>
> HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A THIEF.
>
> Yet, generations of imbeciles did join the CULT OF THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE.
>
> BTW: That E = mc² WAS NEVER, EVER theoretically proven. Not by von Laue
> in 1911 or by Klein in 1919. And even less for the wide range of v
> speeds between 0 and c.
>
> As I said for years, E = mc² WAS ADOPTED AS A CONVENIENT RELATIONSHIP to
> simplify operations in physics and chemistry (and generally adopted in
> other MINOR branches).
RE: "HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A
THIEF."

"You should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity." - HANLON's RAZOR