Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:57:30 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vqi77t$9sg3$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 20:53:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d8fe447a4e540c1d93ce0339f06b2882";
	logging-data="324099"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MjCKCaRoFPqIp9Jz+92NJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AAkCDNHJ+fNibH7/2jftBPUQn0Q=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <ac40ba33fdacea65758dd6ef8e7730ce@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 4418

Den 07.03.2025 19:47, skrev rhertz:
> 
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
> By A. EINSTEIN.   September 27, 1905
> 
> QUOTE FINAL WORDS OF THE 1905 MINI-PAPER:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "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".
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So, the natural-born cretin MADE YOU BELIEVE about TELEPORTING. You saw
> how his idiotic comment was widely used in Star Trek OS, 60 years in the
> future.

So if "radiation conveys inertia" then radiation is TELEPORTING mass?

:-D

The phrase:
"radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies" 
can only mean:
"radiation conveys momentum between the emitting and absorbing bodies".

According to Maxwell a "wave-complex" limited in time and space
(could be a photon) will have a momentum p = E/c where E is
the energy of the wave-complex.

According to Newtonian mechanics:
If we have two stationary objects, each with mass m₀, and a
wave-complex with momentum p is emitted from one of the bodies
and absorbed by the other, then the speed of the bodies will become
v = p/m₀ in opposite directions, and the momentum of the bodies will
be p in opposite directions.

Momentum and inertia is conveyed between the bodies.

> 
> BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!

And by sending that message, Kirk has TELEPORTED a bit of mass to 
Scotty. Right? :-D

-------------------------------------------------------------

Comment for knowledgeable lurkers:

That EM-radiation has momentum follows from Maxwell's equations.
The calculation above is done according to Newtonian mechanics.
Note that momentum is conserved, but energy is _not_ conserved.
The kinetic energy before the transfer is zero, after the transfer
it is 2pc. The energy has increased by twice the energy in the
wave-complex, and there is no change in potential energy.
So where does the energy in the wave complex come from?
This shows that there is something seriously wrong with NM.
NM and Maxwell are not compatible.

According to SR will, after the momentum transfer, the mass
of the emitting body be less than the mass of the absorbing
body, and the velocities will also be different.
The total energy will be:
   γ(v₁)⋅m₁c² + γ(v₂)⋅m₂c² = 2m₀c²     where m₁ > m₀ > m₂
The total momentum:
  - γ(v₁)⋅m₁v₁ = -p  γ(v₂)⋅m₂v₂ = p    where v₁ < v₂, v₁/v₂ ≈ m₂/m₁
    -p + p = 0

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/