DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? (Sept 1905)RE: "HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A
Einstein start this paper with an equation derived on his previous paper
on Electrodynamics (SR). It represents the energy l* of a planar wave of light with energy l, as PERCEIVED from a reference frame moving at speed
v as:
l* = l γ (1 - v cos φ)
where
γ = (1 - v² /c²)^-1/2
φ; angle of the ray with respect the x-axis.
He propose to use this equation from his previous paper in the following
way:
A stationary body in the system K has an energy E0.
The energy of the body perceived in the system k, moving at v speed is
H0.
The stationary body emit twin beams of light in opposite directions,
each with energy L/2.
The energy of the body in the stationary system K, after the emission of light, is E1.
E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
The energy of the body, as perceived in in the moving system k, after
the emission of light, is H1.
H1 = H0 - L/2 γ (1 - v cos φ) - L/2 γ (1 +- v cos φ) = H0 - γ L
Then, Einstein inserts the equation for the difference of the energy
between K and k before and after the emission of the twin beam of light
as:
H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1)
Using a McLaurin expansion of γ for (v/c) << 1
γ = 1 + 1/2 (v/c)² + 3/4 (v/c)⁴ + 15/24 (v/c)⁶ + 105/192 (v/c)⁸ + ..
and dismissing terms higher than the quadratic one, the difference of energies between K and k is set as
H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 (L/c)² v²
As the approximation 1/2 (L/c²) v² RESEMBLES the equation of kinetic energy IF (L/c²) is taken as MASS (inertia), Einstein jumped to the conclusion:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its MASS diminishes
by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy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 × 1020, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.
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." -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This conclusion has been criticized by all, starting with Planck in
1907. He concluded that this is a fallacy
based on a circular argument (petitio principii), because it starts by asserting what he wanted to prove.
The most striking FRAUD is that he didn't prove that the mass of the
object APPARENTLY diminished by (L/c²).
The only thing that he asserted at the beginning of the mini-paper is
that the energy of the object changed by L, after the emission of the
twin beams of light:
E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
Here is the CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (fallacy, lie, fraudulent manipulation):
He started by ASSUMING that there is a relationship between mass and
energy on the object as a starting point. He never used, until the end
of the paper, that the body has a given mass M+ L/c² in the state E0,
and that bit of mass was lost as energy.
Einstein tried to fix this paper SIX TIMES, giving up in 1942.
HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A THIEF.
Yet, generations of imbeciles did join the CULT OF THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE.
BTW: That E = mc² WAS NEVER, EVER theoretically proven. Not by von Laue
in 1911 or by Klein in 1919. And even less for the wide range of v
speeds between 0 and c.
As I said for years, E = mc² WAS ADOPTED AS A CONVENIENT RELATIONSHIP to simplify operations in physics and chemistry (and generally adopted in
other MINOR branches).
I forgot:I hope your car hasn't floated away in the floods.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/425856/difference-between-mass-and-inertia
Learn a little, asshole.
I'm living at Buenos Aires, almost 650 Km far away from Bahia Blanca.Mass-velocity relation:
Damages are mostly in houses. More than 1,000 million USD (estimated)
for reconstruction.
Many lives lost, but far less than in Valencia (Spain).
Thanks for your wishes.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:26:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:10:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
I'm living at Buenos Aires, almost 650 Km far away from Bahia Blanca.Mass-velocity relation:
Damages are mostly in houses. More than 1,000 million USD (estimated)
for reconstruction.
Many lives lost, but far less than in Valencia (Spain).
Thanks for your wishes.
According to this kinetic energy imparts mass. Kinetic energy is energy
that has no mass and imparts on mass. The relation is an unwarranted
inference from experiments.
In times of Newton, what existed to define "capability of action" was
what was called "vis viva", which was the modern concept of linear
momentum.
Newton's 2nd. Law introduced the concept of force as the "rate of change
of
momentum", which became F = d/dt(mv) = ma.
One century later, when the general concept of energy was discussed,
linear kinetic energy was defined as the power embedded into any object
in linear
trajectory due to accumulation of speed of a given mass, starting from
v=0.
Then, the modern concept of KE emerged as KE = ∫ (mv) dv [0; v]
The factor 1/2 is purely due to adoption of the result of the integral.
No
physical meaning. Only mathematical. In this way, linear momentum, KE
and force
were mathematically connected.
linear momentum = d/dv(KE) = d/dv(1/2 mv^2)
linear force = d/dt [d/dv(KE)] = m dv/dt = m a
Nothing has changed for 300 years, even with the fucking relativity"as the "rate of change of momentum", which became F = d/dt(mv) = ma."
except for
the unscrupulous use in particle physics.
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:26:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:10:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
I'm living at Buenos Aires, almost 650 Km far away from Bahia Blanca.Mass-velocity relation:
Damages are mostly in houses. More than 1,000 million USD (estimated)
for reconstruction.
Many lives lost, but far less than in Valencia (Spain).
Thanks for your wishes.
According to this kinetic energy imparts mass. Kinetic energy is energy
that has no mass and imparts on mass. The relation is an unwarranted
inference from experiments.
In times of Newton, what existed to define "capability of action" was
what was called "vis viva", which was the modern concept of linear
momentum.
Newton's 2nd. Law introduced the concept of force as the "rate of change
of
momentum", which became F = d/dt(mv) = ma.
One century later, when the general concept of energy was discussed,
linear kinetic energy was defined as the power embedded into any object
in linear
trajectory due to accumulation of speed of a given mass, starting from
v=0.
Then, the modern concept of KE emerged as KE = ∫ (mv) dv [0; v]
The factor 1/2 is purely due to adoption of the result of the integral.
No
physical meaning. Only mathematical. In this way, linear momentum, KE
and force
were mathematically connected.
linear momentum = d/dv(KE) = d/dv(1/2 mv^2)
linear force = d/dt [d/dv(KE)] = m dv/dt = m a
Nothing has changed for 300 years, even with the fucking relativityThe mass-velocity relation requires kinetic energy to add mass because
except for
the unscrupulous use in particle physics.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:02:13 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,591 |