Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:38:22 +0000
Subject: Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2 (zero-eth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <b63aec6ac23c5f03f785a3b342122e74@www.novabbs.com>
 <ebb75c2571da5e06aef09861c2e2c6a1@www.novabbs.com>
 <6856ad6ee17097c4e1580e4f40c13043@www.novabbs.com>
 <vq6vc8$1ssfk$1@dont-email.me>
 <2e0a65293b1b9ab4c1510495f33ca7b5@www.novabbs.com>
 <vq9luv$2epgi$1@dont-email.me>
 <d92589ac131ee55c5fced0b12efb47b6@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqbmnf$2tbfk$1@dont-email.me>
 <a63f5ae63b8df78f44f6497220b17eeb@www.novabbs.com>
 <67cac50f$0$16841$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <4c93e3730da23d52d7ae76b82315ac23@www.novabbs.com>
 <ac40ba33fdacea65758dd6ef8e7730ce@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqi77t$9sg3$1@dont-email.me>
 <6cdc9bc9d820e4a7ccc0c59d99f672e1@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqjvpu$n8tn$1@dont-email.me> <94WdncBfzdd5N1D6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <7DOdnWcYxsVmIVD6nZ2dnZfqnPhg4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:38:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7DOdnWcYxsVmIVD6nZ2dnZfqnPhg4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <LfCdnU0DHuaST1D6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 180
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-eUIeYvdXQaXl4eZXydENrRO7qtOAkyaPpKn9srDuVpOJGAADqi8UM8W2c8YeTSsMlX4QeXsacaJf4vO!XrD6dL3ARXtba/nPFyPJsUVvbKquKNz8NGVXYz0TB3EUlh5v+o3y8zDH1NRUf94heU68ravYp/k=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 03/09/2025 09:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/09/2025 07:50 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/09/2025 05:02 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 08.03.2025 22:57, skrev rhertz:
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't expecting less from you, Paul. A sad example of how dementia
>>>> has
>>>> eroded most of the little brain that nature gave you at birth.
>>>
>>> And which statement of mine have you proven wrong with this
>>> lethal argument?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> By 1900, and for retarded assholes like you and Einstein, inertia and
>>>> mass WERE EQUIVALENT!
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> But Einstein, you and I know that what is conveyed with EM radiation
>>> is not mass, but energy and momentum.
>>>
>>> So when Einstein said:
>>> "radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies"
>>> his point is that energy has inertia.
>>> So even if the emitting body is conveying energy and no mass to
>>> the absorbing body, the mass of the emitting body will become less
>>> while the mass of the absorbing body will increase.
>>>
>>> Now we know that Einstein was right, E = mc² works both ways.
>>>
>>> Pion decay:       m → γ + γ   energy, momentum and inertia conserved
>>> Pair production:  γ → e⁻ + e⁺ energy, momentum and inertia conserved
>>>
>>> Remember?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that came from Newton First Law, 200 years in the past of
>>>> Einstein's
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>> But Newton was wrong when he believed that mass always is conserved.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Real experimental and theoretical physicists (not the clerk case) were
>>>> using the more descriptive term mass instead of inertia, but THE
>>>> IMBECILE THAT YOU ADORE
>>>> had to name his micro-paper as: DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON
>>>> ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
>>>>
>>>> See, asshole? He used INERTIA instead of MASS, just to use FANCY
>>>> WORDING
>>>> in his fucking NANO-paper.
>>>>
>>>> But he had to concede that he was talking about MASS all the time, when
>>>> he rescued (L/c^2) as the MASS in the Kinetic Energy LOOK-ALIKE
>>>> TRUNCATED EXPANSION OF GAMMA FACTOR USING McLAURIN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But now you feel ENTITLED to figure out what the CRETIN meant when he
>>>> wrote his pico-paper?
>>>>
>>>> The problem with people like you, gullible asshole who devoted a life
>>>> defending your pagan god and relativity is that you are THE PERFECT
>>>> TARGET OF THE KING OF CHARLATANS. And you're willing to give your life
>>>> for such a scoundrel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't even feel sorry for you. You deserve what happened with you and
>>>> will pay for your sins in the FUCKING HELL, relativist.
>>>
>>> But I feel sorry for you, who think you can falsify SR and GR  by use of
>>> ad hominem and profanities.
>>>
>>> You seem to have a very troubled mind.
>>>
>>
>> "Maxwell's Laws" reflect either or both or ExB and DxH,
>> which one's "the mechanism" or "real" and the other derived,
>> make for that there multiple perspectices, in projection.
>>
>> (Projection is also a word from psychology, which is
>> often itself very subjective. Here though it's that
>> matters of perspective and projection are relations
>> about the space of relations in geometry and for motion.)
>>
>> The, "inertial momentum", and, "momental inertia", reflect
>> two different ideas about the same thing, about "inertia"
>> and "immovable object" and "momentum" and "unstoppable force".
>>
>> The momentum, as a quantity, is not overall conserved in
>> kinematics, as with regards to it coming out of the wash,
>> from what is a linear model in kinetics and momentum,
>> where it's conserved insofar as vector addition goes,
>> that "immovable object" and "unstoppable force" are
>> ideals in sense, or, singularities, in what result
>> multplicity theories, because every singularity theory
>> is a multiplicity theory.
>>
>> Then, that the linear and rotational for kinetics and
>> kinematics are fundamentally different, or "worlds turn",
>> has that Lorentz has many solutions vis-a-vis the configuration
>> of experiment, and that the linear and rotational are
>> different, and particularly space-contraction in the linear
>> has the space moving along, and in the rotational, moving
>> around.
>>
>> Light is different than otherwise electromagnetic radiation,
>> that color and energy of intensity of light rays and then
>> also as with regards to nuclear radiation and the ionizing
>> nuclear radiation rays, and, vibrations or radio waves in
>> the electromagnetic field, in the electromagnetic and
>> electromagnetic, has that there are three different values
>> that are "c", according to somebody like O.W. Richardson,
>> and, there's Lorentz-Fitzgerald Lorentz-Fresnel then
>> Lorentz-Maxwell-Einstein and Lorentz-Maxwell-Faraday,
>> or, for something like Lorentz-Maxwell-Finlay-Freundlich
>> for Lorentz-Maxwell-Einstein.
>>
>>
>> Here though about classical mechanics, and, super-classical
>> mechanics, and zero-eth laws of motion and "worlds turn"
>> after a deconstructive account of unstoppable forces and
>> immovable objects, momentum is just a particular linear
>> moment in a simplified kinetics and it's not necessarily
>> in this sort of model a conserved quantity, as with regards
>> to that inertia as relates to mass, is. (In space-frames
>> and frame-spaces in the linear and rotational.)
>>
>>
>> So, mechanics itself deserved a deconstructive and
>> structuralist account along these lines since that
>> reason can arrive at it can be so rebuilt this way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> One way to look at Lorentzian invariance contra Galilean invariance
> is that Lorentz invariance is _not_ Galilean invariance,
> instead of the other way around, that on the outside
> is a more _free_ or _less_ constrained, than that on the
> inside that there's a _more_ constrained, resulting system
> of equations.
>
> Then as with regards to that "force is a function of time" instead
> of that "force is a classical linear impulse", has that it's so with
> regards to the _defined_ and _derived_, all about the more
> _derived_ and less _defined_.
>
> Yet, in _inner_ products and _outer_ products, what makes
> the more _derived_ from a definition one way, may be
> _less_ derived from the definition either way, and with
> regards to what makes for _expansion_ of comprehension,
> and what makes for _restriction_ of comprehension, that
> in axiomatics what makes for _expansion_ of comprehension
> widens definition while what makes for _restriction_ of
> comprehension narrows definition.
>
> These are terms from logic and have these perfect meanings,
> then though that also logically the logical _reduction_ as a
> severe abstraction, always leaves remaining the wider complement,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========