Re: Einstein's Proof of E=mc² | ScienceDump

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> quotes & wrote:
<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/einsteins-proof-emc�>
>
On 1:46 min into that tripe he writes something like this:
>
E * v^2/(2c^2) + m v^2/2 = + m v^2/2
and rewrites it as:
E * v^2/(2c^2) + m_2 v^2/2 = + m_1 v^2/2
Now he divides it by v^2/2 and says
m_1 - m2 = M then states that
E = m_1 - m_2
and hence
E/c^2 = m_1 - m_2 which is M a change in mass
therfore:
E/c^2 = M or E = Mc^2
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO!
Sam, is that how you teach in your Remedial
Night School for Adults?.... and you Sam, you
who hosts that crank.net... you do have the
gall to call other folks' tripe "illucid" & "cranky"?...
>
Sam, are you simply senile?... Because if not,
my dear old pal, it then is no wonder that with
teachers like that the USA student body ranks
#29 out of 30 in Math on the international playing
field.
>
BTW, Sam, even if the above spiel would be
decent, then that is not at all the scenario by
which Einstein proved E=mc^2.
>
Einstein STOLE that equation from Pretto and
others, and publicly apologized for it in 1907...
>
So, forget the above "dump", Sam, because you
and all of the other Einstein Dingleberries are
much more impressive when you present your
own classical <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
....
Thanks for the laugh, you splendid old geezer.
Keep'em coming!.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[xxein]

On May 19, 11:47 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> quotes & wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/einsteins-proof-emc>

xxein: And you have nothing to offer as a physical description
response?

[hanson]

Klein, Stein, "xxein" <xx...@att.net> wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> quotes & wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/einsteins-proof-emc>
>
> On 1:46 min into that tripe he writes something like this:
> E * v^2/(2c^2) + m v^2/2 = + m v^2/2
> and rewrites it as:
> E * v^2/(2c^2) + m_2 v^2/2 = + m_1 v^2/2
> Now he divides it by v^2/2 and says
> m_1 - m2 = M then states that
> E = m_1 - m_2
> and hence
> E/c^2 = m_1 - m_2 which is M a change in mass
> therfore:
> E/c^2 = M or E = Mc^2
>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO!
> Sam, is that how you teach in your Remedial
> Night School for Adults?.... and you Sam, you
> who hosts that crank.net... you do have the
> gall to call other folks' tripe "illucid" & "cranky"?...
>
> Sam, are you simply senile?... Because if not,
> my dear old pal, it then is no wonder that with

> teachers like you, that the USA student body ranks

> #29 out of 30 in Math on the international playing
> field.
>
> BTW, Sam, even if the above spiel would be
> decent, then that is not at all the scenario by
> which Einstein proved E=mc^2.
>
> Einstein STOLE that equation from Pretto and
> others, and publicly apologized for it in 1907...
>
> So, forget the above "dump", Sam, because you
> and all of the other Einstein Dingleberries are
> much more impressive when you present your
> own classical <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
> ....
> Thanks for the laugh, you splendid old geezer.
> Keep'em coming!.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>

Klein, Stein, xxein wrote:
And you have nothing to offer as a physical description
response?
>

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Why should I?... Listen though, Klein:
Let me be easy on you & give you the opportunity,
for you have your 15 minutes of fame, based on
YOUR very own loud-mouthing wherewith you said:
>
[xxein:] I have mathematical models. Just not the
[xxein:] same symbolic math representations. I have
[xxein:] them and proved them. AE was semi-correct
[xxein:] with the observabe part but it wasn't the physic.
[xxein:] But that is his theory which still defies logic.
[xxein:] On this scale, there are no physicists who would
[xxein:] defy Einstein. __Except for me, xxein.___
>
So, go for it, Klein, and present your Yiddisher Street
corner performance, which according to you will knock
the socks off the Einstein Dingleberries.
But your act must be better then what they present in
their <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
Go for it, Klein!, and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Vilas Tamhane]

On May 19, 8:47 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> quotes & wrote:
> <http://www.sciencedump.com/content/einsteins-proof-emc>
>

I don’t know what kind of this math is. But generally E=mc^2 is
derived from integrating the equation for kinetic energy, which
involves F*dx. Since force is change in momentum, they have the term
(mu) du. However mass being variable, they use partial differentials,
mdu+udm. This is now integrated to yield equation for energy.

Basic mathematical error in this derivation is that, the partial
differentials are allowed only when we are dealing with two
INDEPENDENT variables. However, in this case m is dependent on
velocity u and so it cannot be treated as independent variable.

Starting with derivation of kinetic energy which is solely dependent
on velocity and mass, we cannot have a term that is independent of
velocity.

We should replace mass m with mass m0 and associated gamma factor and
integrate. We will not arrive at classical result but in the solution
we will not find any term that is independent of velocity.

Laws of mathematics are beyond wrong manipulations and here we can see
that basic law of mathematics is disobeyed. Mathematics never yields
two unequal results and if you arrive at them then one is wrong. In
the above case Einstein’s derivation is wrong

After experiencing insurmountable hurdles, they now associate gamma
factor with velocity and treat mass as invariant. This does not help,
because they have to similarly trick us in believing similar wrong
mathematics. Instead of mass, they now treat gamma as independent
variable.

[hanson]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote:
> I don�t know what kind of this math is,
> that Sam Wormley has creferred to above.

> But generally E=mc^2 is
> derived from integrating the equation for kinetic energy, which
> involves F*dx. Since force is change in momentum, they have the term
> (mu) du. However mass being variable, they use partial differentials,
> mdu+udm. This is now integrated to yield equation for energy.
>
> Basic mathematical error in this derivation is that, the partial
> differentials are allowed only when we are dealing with two
> INDEPENDENT variables. However, in this case m is dependent on
> velocity u and so it cannot be treated as independent variable.
>
> Starting with derivation of kinetic energy which is solely dependent
> on velocity and mass, we cannot have a term that is independent of
> velocity.
>
> We should replace mass m with mass m0 and associated gamma factor and
> integrate. We will not arrive at classical result but in the solution
> we will not find any term that is independent of velocity.
>
> Laws of mathematics are beyond wrong manipulations and here we can see
> that basic law of mathematics is disobeyed. Mathematics never yields
> two unequal results and if you arrive at them then one is wrong. In
> the above case Einstein�s derivation is wrong
>
> After experiencing insurmountable hurdles, they now associate gamma
> factor with velocity and treat mass as invariant. This does not help,
> because they have to similarly trick us in believing similar wrong
> mathematics. Instead of mass, they now treat gamma as independent
> variable.
>

hanson wrote:
Vilas, you must keep in mind that ALL this Einstein-
and SR/GR lamenting is over GEDANKEN experiments.
Gedanken experiments are Brain-farts and mental
masturbations which have _NO_ value in real life.
>
What is so disgusting is that Einstein Dingleberries
have spent 100+ years and Billions of taxpayer
dollars to prove that Einstein's Brain-turdry was "right",
like with Gravity Probe B, which was an abject failure.
>
But Einstein Dingleberries used some data & labeled it as
"successful" after they performed Gedanken-explanations
that could NOT be verified by independant experiment.
_____ Luckily, Congress turned off its funding _____
>
One ought to wonder what obsession and fetishes
such kinky "cysts" aka Einstein Dingleberry-physi-cists
have and are possessed by that keeps their addiction
going to prove "right" a useless, century old idea, SR/GR,
that has no earthly nor social value, ... instead of simply
__measuring__ new phenomena which will bring
about better products that are useful to humankind.
>
Only RELIGIONS behave like Einstein Dingleberries do.
>
There is NOT a single product ever that was only invented
because SR or GR was known... although Einstein Dingleberries
try, incessantly, by hook and crook to associate their
REL-shit with all kinds of developments... and so here are
todays' places where they use or laugh about SR/GR:
>
||| mil/indust. Eng, R&D..............."does NOT need REL shit"
||| *.edu & grantology ................."does use REL. -- No shit"
||| Promo, Sales & Movies........."loves REL by the shitload"
||| It's Jewish cultural heritage whether... "REL is shit or not".
>
ergo,
________ SR is short for STUPID RANT ______ and
______ GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ________
>
ahahahahaha... and now watch Einstein Dingleberries
to come forth, upfront and center to proselitize their
own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>