Why E=mc² is wrong

[Sylvia Else]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho

Obviously intended mainly for Richard.

Sylvia.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Most likely “mass kg^-1” is inverted

[Richard Hertz]

Sylvia, thanks for the link. The Fermilab's "Michio Kaku" has polluted YT with his videos supporting relativity and derivates. The man is trying to make a living.

I'll add some comments to your post:

1) Something WRONG can be worked out to make it RIGHT, but something FALSE can't be made TRUE, no matter what.

2) Within the comments at this video, one is particularly enlighting, which I expanded:

- Alfred Korzybski, on his book Science and Sanity, wrote: "E=mc^2 is too precise to be accurate at all times and in all places."

3) The insanity of E=mc2 is what led to de Broglie to write his PhD Thesis in 1924, based on his 1922 primitive idea to equate E=mc2=hf.
This opened the door to Wave Mechanics, which led to Quantum Mechanics, which led to several forms of Quantum Field Theories, which led to the current state of physics.

At this link, anyone can follow HOW a crazy proposal to make something different in physics was saw an opportunity by young physicists in the '20s, to develop new theories just to pursue their "moment of fame" at physics:

Revisiting Louis de Broglie's famous 1924 paper in the Philosophical Magazine

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500830600876565

As it can be seen, anything to gain some fame pursuing crazy theoretical proposals. Nothing to lose and everything to gain within the "community".

4) From ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_physical_science_allow_biased_selection_of_experimental_data_while_engineering_science_does_not

Quoting a forist:

"After having worked over several decades in both, experimental physics and engineering science my answer is: In physics data are preferably evaluated in view of still unconfirmed theories while in engineering science data eventually have to yield a functional product.

Maybe the above statement will help understanding what's presently going on with black-hole mergers, gravitational waves, big bang observation, dark matter and similar.

In physical science open discussion of experimental data from an engineering point of view is sometimes avoided in favour of diverging theoretical claims and associated passionate dispute."
---------------------------------------------------------------

As it can be read, physicists are above the "laws of civilization", as they are not held responsible for any of their stupid proposals and theoretical developments, and are eagerly assisted by their fellow experimental physicists to FIT THE DATA to match their theories.

Engineers, instead, have to produce things that WORK, even when they came from the most disparate ideas, or they are done.

So, any idiot can be a physicist without paying a price with society.

This doesn't apply with engineers.

5) And one more time: E=mc2 is FALSE, not WRONG.

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:40:10 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> 3) The insanity of E=mc2 is what led to de Broglie to write his PhD Thesis in 1924, based on his 1922 primitive idea to equate E=mc2=hf.

LOL, you really went off the rails, dickie

[Helmut Wabnig]

You are WRONG and FALSE.

w.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 10.09.2019 16.40, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> 5) And one more time: E=mc2 is FALSE, not WRONG.
>

According to your own words I don't believe anything that
you post as being your true conception of the subject.
You are just playing with us and the fucking physics. It's easy, because
dogmatic and indoctrinated people like me are easy preys for trolling.

So now I don't believe that your true conception
of E=mc2 is that it is FALSE.

That can only mean that you think E=mc2 is TRUE. Right?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hertz]

Actually, I'm more a Hasenhorl's type of person, because he actually proved his derivation E=3/4.mc2 with a correct mathematical formulation of the increase of mass in a closed cavity filled with planckian radiation and no relativity at all. And he didn't use relativity and only used monochromatic light to develop such approximation, which makes it more credible. Closed systems vs. open enviroments at which a balance of energy is falsified by using fallacious "petitio principii" arguments. Hasenhorl is the man!

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:23:40 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm more a asshole type of person

Absolutely

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> 5) And one more time: E=mc2 is FALSE, […]

It is false indeed. The correct equation is

E₀ = m c²,

where E₀ is rest energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in vacuum
(or the constant coefficient in the Lorentz transformation, if you like).

(SCNR)

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/09/2019 12:40 am, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 5) And one more time: E=mc2 is FALSE, not WRONG.

You've engaged in a long character assassination of Einstein, but as far
as I can see, you've never provided a concrete refutation of the various
proofs that E=mc².

What makes you so sure it's false (not sure I see the difference between
that and "wrong")? And how much of the rest of special relativity are
you going to dismantle to avoid the contractions that result if
E=mc² is false?

Sylvia.

[Mitch Raemsch]

That myth equation has a different future.
C speed relates to mass order... God creates.

Mitchell Raemsch

[consequen...@gmail.com]

You've engaged in a long character assassination of Einstein, but as far
as I can see, you've never provided a concrete refutation of the various
proofs that E=mc².

What makes you so sure it's false (not sure I see the difference between
that and "wrong")?

_____________________________________________________________


Einstein's energy E is the energy of a massless em photon. What do you not get?

[Mitch Raemsch]

There is density for universal element...
God creates.

Mitchell Raemsch

[consequen...@gmail.com]

And how much of the rest of special relativity are
you going to dismantle to avoid the contractions that result if
E=mc² is false?

_____________________________________________________


Well, Einstein's SR is justify the existence of a massless electromagnetic ether yet Huygens ether, composed of matter, remains stationary after the light wave propagates through the ether. Plus, Maxwell's equations, used in Einstein SR, is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Is that too much for you to understand?

[Richard Hertz]

I'm not discussing the validity of Einstein's paper on SR.

I'm specifically discussing that his derivation for E=mc^2 is FALSE and based on fallacies, as his next FIVE PUBLIC ATTEMPTS to correct the paper in the next 40 years were a failure.

There is NO THEORETICAL PROOF that support the validity of E=mc^2 as DEVELOPED by Einstein, and no other attempt other than his failed ones to prove it.

E=mc^2 was just ACCEPTED by the physics community, because it's the base of further developments at physics (de Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, Feynnman, etc.). It didn't play any rol in the development of nuclear physics, but it proved to be very convenient for the branch of particle's physics.

Here follows MY PROVE that 1905 Einstein's derivation is FALSE. It's very detailed and require to have a copy of the english translation at hand, to perform fact-cheks.

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

I addressed the topic around E=mc2 in several threads, particularly on this one:

“So, we are clear now? Einstein never proved E=mc^2 is due to loss of mass.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/eoxLarQJFyg%5B76-100%5D

In that thread, months ago, I analyzed step by step how the Sept. 1905 paper fail to prove the link between the ALLEGED loss of mass in the object located at the origin with the transformation of such a small loss (L/c^2) into electromagnetic energy L (visible light in this case).

The paper “DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?” (By A. EINSTEIN. September 27, 1905) is very simple and also very short (2 ½ pages), with initial references to his prior paper (June 30, 1905) : “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES”.

I’ll prove here, AGAIN, that the approximation developed by Einstein to obtain (L/c^2) is FALLACIOUS and mathematically INVALID, and that the extension of this approximation to a wide range of velocities “v”, lower than “c” makes the extrapolation of such result to the entire mass of the body located at the origin is FALSE, and so is any further attempt to use this failed attempt as a general expression E=mc2, with disregard of the range of the velocity “v”.

The paper was almost immediately criticized by Planck (1906) as a wrong approximation, based on a circular reference introduced almost at the beginning (petition principia fallacy), because it introduced early on what was being to be proved. Even this interpretation by Planck is incorrect, because even when the main fallacy is there, hidden at plain sight, there IS NOT any physical connection between the energy L of the pair of light’s beams and ANY PROVEN DECREASE in the mass Mo of the object, as narrated by Einstein.

Einstein tried, publicly, six more times in the next 40 years, failing each time, until he dropped the subject by 1945. By then, the equation E=mc^2 was being pushed very far into the body of knowledge of relativistic physics, and ACCEPTED without discussions even for velocities “v” almost close to “c”.

It was late, by then, to reverse the tide of indoctrination that permeated physics at every statement. That such aberrating paper could be published at Annalen der Physik required complicity, particularly from Wien (Chief Editor) and Planck (Chief Consultant on Theoretical Physics, representing the German Association of Physicists).

--- ANALYSIS OF THE 1905 PAPER (it requires having a copy at hand) -----

FIRST, I QUOTE EINSTEIN’S PARAGRAPHS:

“Let there be a stationary body in the system (x, y, z), and let its energy—referred to the system (x, y, z) be E0. Let the energy of the body relative to the system (x’,y’,z’) moving as above with the velocity v, be H0.

Let this body send out, in a direction making an angle PHI with the axis of x, plane waves of light, of energy ½ L measured relatively to (x, y, z), and simultaneously an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction. Meanwhile the body remains at rest with respect to the system (x, y, z).

The principle of energy must apply to this process, and in fact (by the principle of relativity) with respect to both systems of co-ordinates. If we call the energy of the body after the emission of light E1 or H1 respectively, measured relatively to the system (x, y, z) or (x’,y’,z’) respectively, then by employing the relation given above we obtain…………..”

I STOP HERE THE LITERAL COPY&PASTE (except for the use of (x’,y’,z’)).

I introduce some simplifications (not violating any premises from the quoted paragraphs:

1) As it’s valid for any angle PHI, I select PHI=0, which makes cos PHI =1. Now the beams of light are parallel to the horizontal axis. I LET IT GO that Einstein wrote, before the quoted text:

“Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the system of co-ordinates (x, y, z), possess the energy l”.

This is utterly incorrect, as it would require that the semi-spherical beams of light be measured very far away from the source. But this is a minor license that can be tolerated, given the gross developments that follow.

2) I introduce the HIDDEN MASS Mo of the stationary object that resides at the system (x, y, z), which has been mentioned only once at the beginning of the paper, but without giving it an expression Mo.

3) Einstein introduces the terms E and H to express the ENERGY of the body (Mo, even when he purposedly omit it), being that E is the energy of Mo observed from the RESTING frame (x, y, z), and H as the energy of Mo observed from the MOVING frame (x’,y’,z’), in such a way that:

E0:Energy of the body with mass Mo BEFORE the emission of light, from (x,y,z).
E1: Energy of the body Mo AFTER the emission of light, from (x,y,z).
H0: Energy of the body Mo BEFORE the emission of light, from (x',y’,z’).
H1: Energy of the body Mo AFTER the emission of light, measured from (x’,y’,z’).

4) I’ll be using the letter “Y” to represent the Gamma Factor, for clarity.

Now, I write what Einstein expressed after the quote ending in “we obtain..” as:

Eo = E1 + ½ L + ½ L
Ho = H1 + ½ L.Y + ½ L.Y
= H1 + Y. L

By substraction we obtain from these equations

Ho – Eo - (H1 - E1) = L (Y – 1)

The equations from above are LITERAL equations written by Einstein (using PHI=0 and “Y” as Gamma).

The FALLACY (circular reference criticized by Planck) is in the very first equation. Einstein INTRODUCES his “petitio principii” fallacy by STATING that the body Mo already has the energy embedded into its mass, as it results if I read the equation as E1 = Eo – L.

So, in this in dishonest, deceptive way, he introduces what he wants to prove: that L was WITHIN Mo before the light was turned on.

Einstein continues with his manipulation of the difference of energy between TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, as if they formed a CLOSED system, which is not because light beams travel toward infinity. It’s a very different approach than that of 1904 Hasenhorl, where he used a CLOSED SYSTEM (a cavity with planckian caps).

Then, he substracts the energy from two different systems, one in motion, and express:
Ho – Eo = Ko + C
H1 – E1 = K1 + C

and assert: “since C does not change during the emission of light. So we have”

Ko – K1 = L (Y – 1)

Now, decomposing Y into a series and discarding high power terms, by asserting that v << c, he gets:

Ko – K1 = ½ (L/c^2) . v^2

Quoting:

“From this equation it directly follows that:—
If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its MASS DIMINISHES by L/c^2. 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/9×10^20, the energy being measured in ergs, and the MASS in grammes.”

And this is the conclusion of his paper, which is FALSE by several reasons:

1) FALSE: He introduces a value Eo for energy at (x,y,z) before the light is turned ON. This is FALSE, as the body with mass Mo is at REST on his reference frame, so Eo = 0.

2) FALSE: He introduces (his main fallacy) what he wants to prove: That Mo = Mo’+ dM, where dM will be transformed into energy L when the light is turned ON. He, in a slicky way, never mention Mo, and writes E1 = Eo + L, with an innocent attitude at the beginning. The correct expression is E1 = L, as Eo = 0, which is FALSE, as he doesn’t explain from where L is provided.

3) He, conveniently, suppressed any reference to Mo and the value of energy Ho. It happens that Ho = Y.(½ Mo. V^2), which is the kinetic energy perceived from the moving frame, when observing the behavior of Mo in the resting frame. So,

Ho – Eo = Ko + C = Y.(½ Mo. V^2) + C

4) FALLACY: Now he introduced the perceived energy H1 as having a decrease of “L” respect to Ho, so he can conveniently assert that

H1 – E1 = K1 + C = Y.(½ Mo. V^2 - L) - L + C

which results in his final value of difference of energies:
Ko – K1 = L. (Y – 1), which is approximated to Ko-K1= ½ (L/c^2).v^2

And this is FALSE and mathematically wrong (criticized by Planck).

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Einstein NEVER proved that dM=L/c^2 is a decrease of mass in the value Mo from the resting object.

2) His extrapolation E=mc^2, even when based on very low velocities “v” is FALSE.

3) So, the general and widespread use of E=mc^2 is UNDUE as the equation is FALSE.

[Sylvia Else]

You seem incapable of separating the issue of whether Einstein proved it
from the question of whether it is true. Forget Einstein. Just consider
the proofs.

Sylvia.

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

It to wordy. All you have to say is that:


1. E represents the energy of an em photon.

2. Maxwell's electromagnetic field is not luminous.

3. Maxwell's expanding em field cannot depict a particle structure.

4. The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 4:13:55 PM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

> I STOP HERE THE LITERAL COPY&PASTE ....

.....of the same cretinisms as originally

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

You seem incapable of separating the issue of whether Einstein proved it
from the question of whether it is true. Forget Einstein. Just consider
the proofs.

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

Physical reality has precedence before muddle and inarticulate proofs by Einstein or anyone Else.

[Sylvia Else]

That's just gibberish.

Sylvia.

[Richard Hertz]

I don't know how to continue this subject with you, given your answer to my post.

I state this, to end this issue: There IS NOT any other theoretical development to obtain E=mc2 under einstenian relativity MORE than the SIX failed attempts performed by Einstein (they ARE DOCUMENTED), along 40 years until 1945, when he gave up.

Not one, none, zero!

So, the adoption of E=mc2 and 1907 Planck's extension to include momentum, is rooted on the September 1905 paper that Einstein wrote. So, if the physics community decided to ADOPT such a FAILED expression is due to other interests, like the easyness that such a stupid formula provides to present values of matter and energy unified in the units of ElectronVolt (eV), while taking c=1.

If you get this, well. If you don't get this, it's OK for me, also.

Theoretical proof: FALSE, but adopted as TRUE.

Practical applications: For me (IMO), the values involved in eV are as FALSE as the values derived from the fission of an U-235 nucleus, even when I devoted TWICE the effort in different threads to PROVE that the kinetic energy of about 200 MeV is originated by electrostatic repulsion of the byproducts of the fission, once a neutron (slow or fast) destabilize the isotope U-236.

The formula which explain such energy is the one derived from electrostatic forces: F.r = k.q1.q2/r (eV), and not E=mc2 (eV). The einstenian attempt can't be justified by the outcome of byproducts of the fission: two different nuclei and 2 or 3 neutrons, depending on the nuclei nature (there are different outputs from the fission of U-235 nucleus by a neutron).

Going to the limit of the application of E=mc2, it can't be applied to baryonic matter, like electrons and quarks, which are not susceptible of any theoretical transformation into energy.

And regarding binding energy and missing masses, I believe that there are OTHER explanations for such phenomena.

So, E=mc2 is FALSE and any application of it is just by conventions adopted by the community of physicists. I stop here, as I wrote about this many times.

At any case, if you want, find other posts of mine about this subject.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:36:44 PM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

> Practical applications: For me (IMO), the values involved in eV are as FALSE as the values derived from the fission of an U-235 nucleus,

Well, you can't help it, you are a natural imbecile <shrug>

[Sylvia Else]

Here's a challenge for you.

Cite a purported proof of E=mc² that is generally accepted (even if not
by you) as being valid. Then, without making any kind of reference to
any person, show why the purported proof is not valid. That is, point to
a flaw IN THE PROOF.

Sylvia.

[Michael Moroney]

Einsteintard Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> tarded:

>I don't know how to continue this subject with you, given your answer to my post.

>I state this, to end this issue: There IS NOT any other theoretical development to
>obtain E=mc2 under einstenian relativity MORE than the SIX failed attempts
>performed by Einstein (they ARE DOCUMENTED), along 40 years until 1945, when he
>gave up.

>Not one, none, zero!

Let's look again. A neutron will fission a U-235 atom into two nuclei and more
neutrons. One real example is the following:

U-235 + n --> Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n.

The neutron causes the uranium atom to fission into a barium and krypton nuclei plus
3 more neutrons.

Let's add up the masses (in amu)

U-235 = 235.043930 amu
n = 1.008665 amu
Total = 236.052595 amu

Now the products:

Ba-141 = 140.914411 amu
Kr-92 = 91.926156 amu
3 n = 3.025995 amu
Total = 235.866562 amu

Wait! They're not equal! The difference between 236.052595 amu and 235.866562 amu is
0.186033 amu! That is 308.915151E-30 kg. Where did that mass go?

What happens if I plug that number into that cursed E=mc^2? I get 2.7763909E-11
Joules, which is 173.288698 MeV! Hey, that's pretty close to the 200 MeV figure
you were kicking around. That's probably an average, some fissions will have more
and others less. So, according to E=mc^2, in one fission, 2.7763909E-11 kg of mass
became 173.288698 MeV of energy! Richard is wrong again!!


QED.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Richard knows that the equation E = mc^2 is solidly
verified experimentally. And he knows that he was wrong
when he claimed that Meitner didn't use the equation in:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Nature_Meitner.shtml

That's why he never answered the following question:

What do you think this statement meant:
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and
the elements in the middle of the periodic system."
if not what I have explained?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hertz]

Moroney, last time that I reply to a post of yours. You REPOST what you
wrote in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/sHOOFGZ5wbs%5B1-25%5D


Excerpt from your post, the same thing as your first post there:

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

Wait! They're not equal! The difference between 236.052595 amu and 235.866562 amu is 0.186033 amu! That is 308.915151E-30 kg.

Where did that mass go?

What happens if I plug that number into that cursed E=mc^2? I get 2.7763909E-11
Joules, which is 173.288698 MeV! Hey, that's pretty close to the 200 MeV figure
you were kicking around. That's probably an average, some fissions will have more and others less. So, according to E=mc^2, in one fission, 2.7763909E-11 kg of mass became 173.288698 MeV of energy! Richard is wrong again!!

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

You, in a pathetic way, pretend to reproduce what Lise Meitner had in her mind 80 years and nine months ago, while being in exile and FAR from any lab or german library (where last researches were), and use 2018 VALUES of AMU (with 10 digits), not even knowing which type of byproducts Hahn produced, even when not him neither Meitner were shure about it, with the exception of the probable presence of Barium!

And worse yet, you pretend to INSTALL THE IDEA that, by 1938, there was a CLEAR understanding of "binding energy" OR accurate values of MASSES of different atoms. Man, you have no solution. Your mind is completely ruined by decades of indoctrination, which crystalized ideas into your brain like choresterol into your arteries.

You need "surgery", to allow fresh flow of blood to FEED your neurons (the one that are left after such a wasted life defending relativity). But I'm afraid that this remedy is in vain, as your mind is lost forever.

Look what you demand: Where did that mass go?

And you ask it, as it emerges from elementary math performed with NIST's supplied data about AMU, pretending that a residual 0.186033 amu IS MASS!

Mass or Energy? You are trapped into your own torturing circular thought between mass and energy, looping around E <--> mc^2, and citing data which you don't have a fucking clue about HOW it was generated.

You have to devote your spare time writing "Back to the Future IV", where you or someone else go back to December 1938 at tell Meitner THIS 2018 data, so you can write your IDIOTIC POST back in 2019.

Do you get the irony of this? You would be able to fulfill the prophecy of the "Flux Condenser" fact-check, when the professor is assured that his idea at the bathroom WORKS in the future!

Nice loop, Moroney.

As I wrote: You are ideologically broken and have no fix.

I refresh you with an excerpt from Meitner letter, published on Feb.1939:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Nature_Meitner.shtml

"It seems therefore possible that the uranium nucleus has only small stability of form, and may, after neutron capture, divide itself into two nuclei of roughly equal size (the precise ratio of sizes depending on finer structural features and perhaps partly on chance). These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic energy of c. 200 Mev., AS CALCULATED FROM NUCLEAR RADIUS AND CHARGE."

Then, read what was taught to Los Alamos 200 physicists by April 1943 by Serber:

https://www.academia.edu/37996047/Robert_Serber_Richard_Rhodes-The_Los_Alamos_Primer


ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION IN THE FISSION, NOT E=MC2!

[Richard Hertz]

WHY SHOULD I BOTHER ANSWERING YOU, IF YOU DIDN'T BOTHER READING MY POST, AND
EVEN CLAIM IT ALOUD, WITHOUT GIVING IT A CHANCE?


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/vVhwT3tfSKw

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 15:30:25 UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > Paul, this is my particular view of what KNOWLEDGE is:
> >
> > [Snip what I, according to Richards own words, shouldn't believe is his true conception of KNOWLEDGE]
> >
>
> Why would I bother to read your trolling?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, 12 September 2019 00:41:38 UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

< snip>

> Here's a challenge for you.
>
> Cite a purported proof of E=mc² that is generally accepted (even if not
> by you) as being valid. Then, without making any kind of reference to
> any person, show why the purported proof is not valid. That is, point to
> a flaw IN THE PROOF.
>
> Sylvia.

Did you even bother to read my demonstration about the falsitude of the root paper? IF NOT, any further interaction has no sense for me.

And also, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PROOF? What is it? Do you know what you ask?

What, are your talking about something like this?

Einstein Was Right (Again): Experiments Confirm that E= mc2
December 21, 2005

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2



And the phrase "Einstein was right again" has polluted MEDIA for more than 40 years, with any news connecting Einstein with some measurement or observation!


IT'S TOO OBVIOUS FOR THE FUCKERS BEHIND THIS AGENDA! I COULD TRACE BACK THEM TO THE SAME SOURCES THAT PUSHES GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBALIZATION, ETC.

These people is never tired by taking public as idiots, with impairments in the link between short term and long term memory. They know how come, on average, idiots THINK, REMEMBER and look things to be in awe at them.

You give EXACTLY the experiment, and provide the means to access to its data.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:35:47 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

>
> ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION IN THE FISSION, NOT E=MC2!

Repeating the same imbecilities doesn't make you right. Makes you just the imbecile you are.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:52:50 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

>
> Did you even bother to read my demonstration about the falsitude of the root paper?

Yep. your "demonstration" is FALSE.

[Richard Hertz]

And posting this stupid article's link without any comment don't make you appear as smarter than a FUCKING APE, Idiot.

If you CAN'T WRITE, except for your usual profanity, don't post here anymore and keep programming in BASIC.

Proton radius measured with incredible precision
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 23:56:32 UTC-3, Dono, wrote:
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-finally-nail-the-protons-size-and-hope-dies-20190911/

[Richard Hertz]

Prove it.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:04:41 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

I did. The first time you posted your imbecility.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:03:58 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 11:56:01 UTC-3, Dono, wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:35:47 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:
> > >
> > > ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION IN THE FISSION, NOT E=MC2!
> >
> > Repeating the same imbecilities doesn't make you right. Makes you just the imbecile you are.
>

> If you CAN'T WRITE,

I sure can, proof is the kicks I am giving you, Einsturd.

[Richard Hertz]

No, you can't, cretin.

Write 20 lines about your understanding on why E=mc2 is true. You can use two or three paragraphs.

And don't copy&paste OR "copy, scramble_words_and_sentences&paste" like your pagan god did for a living, because I'll trace your post toward its source(s).

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:44:10 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 12:35:52 UTC-3, Dono, wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:03:58 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:
> > > On Thursday, 12 September 2019 11:56:01 UTC-3, Dono, wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:35:47 AM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:
> > > > >
> > > > > ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION IN THE FISSION, NOT E=MC2!
> > > >
> > > > Repeating the same imbecilities doesn't make you right. Makes you just the imbecile you are.
> > >
> >
> > > If you CAN'T WRITE,
> >
> > I sure can, proof is the kicks I am giving you, Einsturd.
>
> No, you can't,

I already did, when you first graced us with your presence.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

carleto4...@gmail.com escrito

KE = (planck length / (2 m)) / (((hbar / planck length) * c) / (c^2)) = 3.71295774e-28 kg^-1 Friedmann mass

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZXFjfPczt3vVF97L7

[Michael Moroney]

Einsteintard Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> tarded:

>On Thursday, 12 September 2019 01:02:13 UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Einsteintard Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> tarded:

>> >I don't know how to continue this subject with you, given your answer to my post.

>> >I state this, to end this issue: There IS NOT any other theoretical development to
>> >obtain E=mc2 under einstenian relativity MORE than the SIX failed attempts
>> >performed by Einstein (they ARE DOCUMENTED), along 40 years until 1945, when he
>> >gave up.

>> >Not one, none, zero!


>> Let's look again. A neutron will fission a U-235 atom into two nuclei and more
>> neutrons. One real example is the following:

>Moroney, last time that I reply to a post of yours. You REPOST what you
>wrote in this thread:

Yes, Richard, I reposted this since you never answered the last time but you came
back here and proclaimed:

>> >I state this, to end this issue: There IS NOT any other theoretical development to
>> >obtain E=mc2 under einstenian relativity MORE than the SIX failed attempts
>> >performed by Einstein (they ARE DOCUMENTED), along 40 years until 1945, when he
>> >gave up.

>> >Not one, none, zero!

and I reposted that to show that there IS evidence which supports it, the fission of
U-235.

So tell us where that missing energy went, or admit that you lied to us.

>You, in a pathetic way, pretend to reproduce what Lise Meitner had in her
>mind 80 years and nine months ago, while being in exile and FAR from any lab
>or german library (where last researches were), and use 2018 VALUES of AMU
>(with 10 digits), not even knowing which type of byproducts Hahn produced,
>even when not him neither Meitner were shure about it, with the exception
>of the probable presence of Barium!

Did I ever claim Meitner used the 2018 values of AMU? I never mentioned her.

My point is that your lie that there is no evidence of E=mc^2 is FALSE. Unless
you can find that missing mass! (Did you look under your bed?)

<snip claims about what 1930s scientists thought or knew>

>Look what you demand: Where did that mass go?

So tell us, already! Where is it?

>And you ask it, as it emerges from elementary math performed with NIST's
>supplied data about AMU, pretending that a residual 0.186033 amu IS MASS!

Where did it go? The products after the fission are short in total mass by that
much! (Check the wastebasket, maybe someone threw it out by accident)

>These two nuclei will repel each other and should gain a total kinetic energy of
>c. 200 Mev., AS CALCULATED FROM NUCLEAR RADIUS AND CHARGE."

Yes, multiple ways of calculating things. So what. Doesn't change the fact that
after the nuclei repel each other the total mass will be less by about 200 MeV/c^2
or about 0.18 AMU.

>ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION IN THE FISSION, NOT E=MC2!

It's both. The energy of repulsion has a mass equivalent E=mc^2 (not E=mc2, doofus!)

[Michael Moroney]

"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller...@hotmail.com> writes:

>4. The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.

The complete equation is actually E = sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2).

For things with nonzero rest mass which are stationary (p=0), this reduces to
the famous E=mc^2

For light with zero rest mass (m=0), it reduces to E=pc.

[Paul B. Andersen]

You shouldn't bother to answer my question because
you would have to admit that you were wrong when
you claimed that Meitner didn't use the E = mc^2 equation in:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Nature_Meitner.shtml

Why else would you for the fourth time ignore the following question?

What do you think this statement meant:
"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and
the elements in the middle of the periodic system."
if not what I have explained?

But since you, after I asked the question above for
the third time, have stated:
"Don't believe anything that I post as being my true conception
of the subject. I'm just playing with you and the fucking physics.
It's easy, because dogmatic and indoctrinated people like you
are easy preys for trolling."

I will assume that you knew that Meitner used the equation E = mc^2,
you were only trolling with us when said she was not.

Or shouldn't we believe you when you said that we shouldn't believe you?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Mitch Raemsch]

You can't prove it wrong but it does apply in
a different way. Aether density... God creates.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Paul B. Andersen]

Richard Hertz is to ignorant of physics to understand
that the measurable kinetic energy released
in the electrostatic repulsion in the fission
confirms E = mc^2.

Meitner realized this in 1939:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/Nature_Meitner.shtml

"This amount of energy may actually be expected to be available
from the difference in packing fraction between uranium and
the elements in the middle of the periodic system."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

E = mc2 is off the topic of ESR.

[Mitch Raemsch]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:35:18 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> E = mc2 is off the topic of ESR.

Roy masters doesn't like math...
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

Light is said to propagate with a constant velocity in all directions which negates Michelson's experiment that is based on the the light rays propagating with a different velocities caused by the ether wind. Also, Michelson is using an interference effect formed by an ether, composed of matter, that does not exist (vacuum).

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:21:19 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 12/09/2019 9:24 am, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It to wordy. All you have to say is that:
> >
> >
> > 1. E represents the energy of an em photon.
> >
> > 2. Maxwell's electromagnetic field is not luminous.
> >
> > 3. Maxwell's expanding em field cannot depict a particle structure.
> >

> > 4. The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.
> >
>

> That's just gibberish.
>
> Sylvia.

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


Could you explain why 1 - 4 are gibberish?

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

Here's a starter --- does E depict the energy of an em photon?

[Mitch Raemsch]

Light is an energy spherical wavelet.
Light has a mass by E=mc
Light is the "lightest mass..."
God creates.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Michael Moroney]

Mitch Raemsch <mitchr...@gmail.com> writes:

>Light has a mass by E=mc

I already mentioned that is wrong, and why.

[Pálek Slovù]

Mitch Raemsch wrote:

>> Could you explain why 1 - 4 are gibberish?
>
> Light is an energy spherical wavelet.
> Light has a mass by E=mc Light is the "lightest mass..."

Yes, light is good, but deceiving. You can't see anything with dark.
That's why people prefer light before dark.

[Mitch Raemsch]

Kinetic energy for light has no mass.
You don't know what you believe you do.
Light has an energy with a density.
E=mc myth is for light...
E=mc^2 is myth for the atom and what is inside...

[Mitch Raemsch]

Light's energy becomes mass when stored in the atom...
the atom gets a tiny extra heaviness because of light
being the lightest form with it...

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

"XV. General Results of the Theory


IT is clear from our previous considerations that the (special) theory of relativity has grown out of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields it has not appreciably altered the predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws, and—what is incomparably more important—it has considerably reduced the number of independent hypotheses forming the basis of theory. The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory so plausible, that the latter would have been generally accepted by physicists even if experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favor." (Einstein6, § 15).


"Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of energy Eo, then its inertial mass increases by an amount




Eo/c^2....................................................63





the inertial mass of a body is not a constant, but varies according to the change in the energy of the body. The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. Writing the expression for the energy in the form




mc2 + Eo/ (1 - v2/c2)1/2..............................................64




we see that the term mc2, which has hitherto attracted our attention, is nothing else than the energy possessed by the body before it absorbed the energy Eo." (Einstein6, § 15).


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



It looks to me that E is the energy of an em photon. What do you think honey pie butter buns.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/09/2019 12:52 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 00:41:38 UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>> Here's a challenge for you.
>>
>> Cite a purported proof of E=mc² that is generally accepted (even if not
>> by you) as being valid. Then, without making any kind of reference to
>> any person, show why the purported proof is not valid. That is, point to
>> a flaw IN THE PROOF.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Did you even bother to read my demonstration about the falsitude of the root paper? IF NOT, any further interaction has no sense for me.
>
> And also, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PROOF? What is it? Do you know what you ask?
>
> What, are your talking about something like this?
>
> Einstein Was Right (Again): Experiments Confirm that E= mc2
> December 21, 2005
>
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2
>
>
>
> And the phrase "Einstein was right again" has polluted MEDIA for more than 40 years, with any news connecting Einstein with some measurement or observation!
>
>
> IT'S TOO OBVIOUS FOR THE FUCKERS BEHIND THIS AGENDA! I COULD TRACE BACK THEM TO THE SAME SOURCES THAT PUSHES GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBALIZATION, ETC.
>
> These people is never tired by taking public as idiots, with impairments in the link between short term and long term memory. They know how come, on average, idiots THINK, REMEMBER and look things to be in awe at them.
>
> You give EXACTLY the experiment, and provide the means to access to its data.
>
I gather, then, that you are chronically incapable of discussing this
without mentioning Einstein.

E=mc² is derived from the Lorentz transform. If it's wrong, you should
be able to show the flaw in the derivation.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

No - that's the nature of gibberish. It's that lack of meaning that
makes it gibberish. For each of the above there are unaccountably many
meaningful sentences that could have been modified to arrive at the
gibberish version. It is therefore impossible to state the specific
modification involved by way of explanation.

Sylvia.

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

No - that's the nature of gibberish. It's that lack of meaning that
makes it gibberish. For each of the above there are unaccountably many
meaningful sentences that could have been modified to arrive at the
gibberish version. It is therefore impossible to state the specific
modification involved by way of explanation.

______________________________________________________


I've posted Einstein's quote regarding Maxwell's theory. You seem to be in denial.

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, 12 September 2019 20:31:27 UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

< snip>

> I gather, then, that you are chronically incapable of discussing this
> without mentioning Einstein.
>
> E=mc² is derived from the Lorentz transform. If it's wrong, you should
> be able to show the flaw in the derivation.
>
> Sylvia.

1) I write all the time about E=mc2 being FALSE, and that Einstein's derivation
is WRONG. It's not about his incompetence, it's about his sophism and how far
he was willing to go to HIDE his fallacies and plagiarism.

2) I wrote a demonstration of his wicky wrongdoings, EVEN CONCEDING that Lorentz
was valid and could be applied in the paper. But even with this concesion, he
FAILED to derivate the approximation dM=L/c^2, and even more when he extended
such result to the entire inertial mass Mo (which he didn't use explicitly).
And he never, ever could make a correct development to reach E=mc2 in the
next 40 years, because his paper was fallacious since page 1.

3) I wrote many times here that the only approximation between mass and energy
that I accept is the mathematically correct one derived by Hasenhorl in 1904,
which was corrected to E=3/4mc2 in 1905. And without relativity.

4) There were other attempts, done by Poincaré in 1900, within his paper "The
Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction", where he develop an
expression Mr=S/c^2 based on Maxwell's radiation pressure and Lorentz theory.
But, even when Poincaré calculated the recoil caused by a shot of light from
a mass of 1Kg, he didn't developed the relationship for inertial masses, and
his formula applied only to "electromagnetic masses" involved into emission
or absorption of radiant energy. At any case, it has relativistic roots.

5) If you want to read a proof of how wrong the 1905 Einstein's paper was, from
a more qualified source other than myself, I recomend to read the
pulverization of Einstein's paper performed by Herbert E. Ives in 1952:

Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation
Herbert E. Ives
August 1952
Journal of the Optical Society of America

At the end of the paper, he follows a path similar to mine, but with more
proper analysis, showing how Einstein falsified the mathematics and the
physical concepts embedded into his 1905 paper.

6) I mention Einstein every time that his FALSE approximation E=mc2 is used,
because this is the equation that was adopted by the physics community
since 1925, approximately.

If you want to trace his use, I suggest that you read this book:

FROM THE DISCOVERY OF THE NEUTRON TO THE DISCOVERY OF NUCLEAR FISSION
Edoardo AMALDI
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università “La Sapienza”, Roma
January 1984

In this historical research of the evolution of nuclear physics since about
1902 up to 1950, you'll find several early applications of E=mc2, and rich
and detailed histories about lab experiments around the atomic science.

Also, you and many others will be able to FIND OUT that E=mc2 was NEVER
considered to be used to explain nuclear fission of U-235.

And with this, I cease to respond any comments on this thread.

But, I have to say that E=mc2 is FALSE.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-7, Einsturd Richard Hertz turded:

>
>
> But, I have to say that E=mc2 is FALSE.

Can't fix the Hertz imbecile. Especially since he's a stubborn imbecile.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/09/2019 12:56 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 September 2019 20:31:27 UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> < snip>
>
>> I gather, then, that you are chronically incapable of discussing this
>> without mentioning Einstein.
>>
>> E=mc² is derived from the Lorentz transform. If it's wrong, you should
>> be able to show the flaw in the derivation.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> 1) I write all the time about E=mc2 being FALSE, and that Einstein's derivation
> is WRONG. It's not about his incompetence, it's about his sophism and how far
> he was willing to go to HIDE his fallacies and plagiarism.

Nup. No good. You mentioned Einstein in the first line. Unbelievable.

Sylvia.

[Pálek Slovù]

No idea, does it?

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

.It to wordy. All you have to say is that:


1.. E represents the energy of an em photon.

2.. Maxwell's electromagnetic field is not luminous.

3.. Maxwell's expanding em field cannot depict a particle structure.

4.. The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.

You write all that stuff and you do not say anything about 1-4 in your inarticulate ramblings but I do agree that E=mc2 is false but you have to include 1-4, and, Lorentz did not derive E=mc2 since it come right out of the ke.

_____________________________________________________________

When Einstein states "The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory". E is referring to Maxwell's equations since E and L both use Maxwell's equations to transform the ether into an electromagnetic aether------------ I dear say ol chap and honey buns.

[Mitch Raemsch]

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:32:44 AM UTC-7, Pálek Slovù wrote:
> Mitch Raemsch wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-7, Pálek Slovù wrote:
> >> Mitch Raemsch wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Could you explain why 1 - 4 are gibberish?
> >> >
> >> > Light is an energy spherical wavelet.
> >> > Light has a mass by E=mc Light is the "lightest mass..."
> >>
> >> Yes, light is good, but deceiving. You can't see anything with dark.
> >> That's why people prefer light before dark.
> >
> > Light's energy becomes mass when stored in the atom...
> > the atom gets a tiny extra heaviness because of light being the lightest
> > form with it...
>
> No idea, does it?

There is more than one mass.
God creates.

Mitchell Raemsch

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

..It to wordy. All you have to say is that:

1.. E represents the energy of an em photon.

2.. Maxwell's electromagnetic field is not luminous.

3.. Maxwell's expanding em field cannot depict a particle structure.

4.. The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.

You write all that stuff and you do not say anything about 1-4 in your inarticulate ramblings but I do agree that E=mc2 is false but you have to include 1-4, and, Lorentz did not derive E=mc2 since it come right out of the ke.

_____________________________________________________________

- hide quoted text -

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

...It to wordy. All you have to say is that:


1... E represents the energy of an em photon.

2... Maxwell's electromagnetic field is not luminous.

3... Maxwell's expanding em field cannot depict a particle structure.

4... The unit of e = mc2 are the units of the KE yet light is massless.

.You write all that stuff and you do not say anything about 1-4 in your inarticulate ramblings but I do agree that E=mc2 is false but you have to include 1-4, and, Lorentz did not derive E=mc2 since it come right out of the ke.

_____________________________________________________________


."XV. General Results of the Theory

.IT is clear from our previous considerations that the (special) theory of relativity has grown out of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields it has not appreciably altered the predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws,, and—what is incomparably more important—it has considerably reduced the number of independent hypotheses forming the basis of theory.. The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory so plausible, that the latter would have been generally accepted by physicists even if experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favor.." (Einstein6, § 15).


."Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of energy Eo, then its inertial mass increases by an amount


.Eo/c^2....................................................63


.the inertial mass of a body is not a constant, but varies according to the change in the energy of the body. The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy.. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. Writing the expression for the energy in the form


.mc2 + Eo/ (1 - v2/c2)1/2..............................................64


.we see that the term mc2, which has hitherto attracted our attention, is nothing else than the energy possessed by the body before it absorbed the energy Eo.." (Einstein6, § 15).


.-------------------------------------------------------------------


.When Einstein states "The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory". E is referring to Maxwell's equations since E and L both use Maxwell's equations to transform the ether into an electromagnetic aether------------.. I dear say ol chap and honey buns.

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

In Lorentz's paper "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems" (1899), Lorentz is depicting an electromagnetic aether using Maxwell's equations to justify Maxwell's theory,

"I applied to the aether the ordinary electromagnetic equations," (Lorentz, § 1).

"dBz/dy - dBy/dz = 4πq(px + vx) + 4π(d/dt - px d/dx) Ex.............14

dBx/dz - dBz/dx = 4πpqvy + 4π(d/dt - px d/dx) Ey......................15

dBy/dx - dBx/dy = 4πqvz + 4π(d/dt - px d/dx) Ez..................16


..............................................................................................................


4πV2(dEz /dy - dEy/dz) = - (d/dt - px d/dx) Bx.......................17

4πV2(dEx/dz - dEz /dx) = - (d/dt - px d/dx) By.....................18

4πV2(dEy/dx - dEx/dy) = - (d/dt - px d/dx) Bx.......................19


...In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).


x' = [V/(V2 - px2)1/2]x,................................................20

y' = y,........................................21

z' = z,.............................................22

t' = t - x px /(V2 - px2).......................23



We see that Lorentz's relativity is using Maxwell's equations.

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

"§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space. On the nature of the electromotive forces that arise upon motion in a magnetic field.

Let the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space be valid for the system at rest K, so that we have

dX/dt = dN/dy - dM/dz.................................................45

dY/dt = dL/dz - dN/dx..................................................46

dZ/dt = dM/dx - dL/dy..................................................47


......................................................................................



dL/dt = dY/dz - dZ/dy...................................................48

dM/dt = dZ/dx - dX/dz..................................................49

dN/dt = dX/dy - dY/dx..................................................50


where (X,Y,Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L,M,N) that of the magnetic force." (Einstein2, § 6)

β = 1/(1 - v2/c2)1/2................................51


Applying equation 48 to the coordinate system of Maxwell's equations,


"X' = X................... L' = L...........................52a,b


Y' = β[Y - (v/c)N]........ M'= β[M + (v/c)Z]..............53a,b


Z' = β[Z + (v/c)M],........N' = β[N - (v/c)Y]".............54a,b



(Einstein2, § 6).



And it looks like Einstein is also using Maxwell's equations. So we can concluded that relativity is based on Maxwell's equations. Next, stated in 1917,

"Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of energy Eo, then its inertial mass increases by an amount"

Einstein is stating that an atom is absorbing a photon which means with Einstein's statement regarding Lorentz and Einstein use of Maxwell's theory depicts the structure of an electromagnetic photon begining absorbed by an atom that photon energy is depicted with E; consequently, the equation E=mc2 is invalid since the variable E is massless and represents the units of the kinetic energy.

[carleto4...@gmail.com]

Give us some honey love baby buns and sugar lips.

[Sylvia Else]

C'mon, Richard.

Prove that you can write refutation of E=mc² without using the word
"Einstein".

Sylvia.