Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:39:12 +0100
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <m2qdb8Fn373U7@mid.individual.net>
References: <b63aec6ac23c5f03f785a3b342122e74@www.novabbs.com>
 <ebb75c2571da5e06aef09861c2e2c6a1@www.novabbs.com>
 <6856ad6ee17097c4e1580e4f40c13043@www.novabbs.com>
 <vq6vc8$1ssfk$1@dont-email.me>
 <2e0a65293b1b9ab4c1510495f33ca7b5@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net QTEq3QdK71o1VpSRoK4Xbw8BAN9rtsePvla0gXgmwB+LYG/+yh
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2RfoOuVC53TWTnGcVl839o3kCcY= sha256:FMvdwdf+KGV6+Y5vDfl2x843RYWZbYdMgVND446tzDg=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <2e0a65293b1b9ab4c1510495f33ca7b5@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 4398

Am Dienstag000004, 04.03.2025 um 18:24 schrieb rhertz:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> It is much correct in what you say.
>>
>> BUT:
>> The equation
>>    E = ∝ m
>> say there is some kind of equivalence between mass and energy,
>> and that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa.
>>
>> This can only be empirically tested.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> E = m
>>
>> But remember, the equivalency is empirically shown to be true.
> 
> It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.


Sure, because it doesn't make sense.

The error is, that meant with 'm' is not 'mass', but 'amount of matter'.

Mass is a physical quantity and a measure for resistance to acceleration 
and not for 'amount of matter'.

But one quantity cannot morph into another quantity, because that would 
be against the rules for physical quantities.

Matter, however, can 'transmute' into a state, for which we have no 
mass, but energy.

But the would say:

MATTER (!!!!) can be converted into massless radiation (NOT mass)!!
> 
> In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
> before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century),
> thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire
> CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
> (radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
> water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.
> 
> The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into
> mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
> sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.


'mass' is NOT meant as 'amount of matter'!


> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/ 
> til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/
> 
> What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING
> CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper,
> using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded
> this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
> image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.
> 
> 
> Relativity is MORE A CULT than anything else. It's a pseudoscience that
> the Jewish community has been shoving down the throat of gullible, yet
> intelligent people.

'relativity' is actually a really simple principle, which nobody would 
reject.

Another story would be, whether or not Einstein's paper 'On the 
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' makes sense.

I would say:

Einstein's paper is FULL of errors of all kinds and an affrond to any 
scientific reader.

My guess: It was meant as an insult and was maintained by power in an 
unscientific realm, because people in the 'community' had to swallow 
that piece of garbage, unless they wanted to be expelled from job and 
the academic community.

That hateful behaviour, hostile to that 'community', was actually 
Einstein's behaviour while in Princton:

he gave (almost) no lectures
his writing desk and his office were a mess
he found nothing
he wore no socks
he had nothing you would call 'haircut'
his wife looked like a male in a dress
he stretched out his tounge, when being photographed

....


TH