Discussion:
Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2
Add Reply
rhertz
2025-03-03 00:35:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? (Sept 1905)

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 The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy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).
rhertz
2025-03-03 04:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Einstein’s 1905 Paper on E=mc²

Patrick Moylan, James Lombardi and Stephen Moylan

https://ajuronline.org/uploads/Volume_13_1/AJUR_January_2016p5.pdf


ABSTRACT
It is well-known that Einstein’s first paper on E=mc² as published in
the Annalen der Physik in 1905 is problematic in that it suffers from
the error of circular reasoning. This means that it uses as one of its
premises a statement which is equivalent to the conclusion of the paper,
namely, that E=mc².

This difficulty with the paper has been pointed out by many writers
including
Max Planck, Herbert Ives, Max Jammer and also biographers of Einstein
including Gerald Holton and Arthur I. Miller.

Unfortunately, the derivation is repeated today as being correct without
any mention of the above criticisms of it. In view of this it seems to
us worthwhile to have a clear and as simple as possible explanation of
the
logical difficulties associated with Einstein’s 1905 derivation, and it
is to this end that this paper is written.

Herewith we present a very simple treatment of the problem which
makes absolutely clear the logical difficulties in Einstein’s first
published work on E=mc².
rhertz
2025-03-03 16:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rhertz
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? (Sept 1905)
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
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
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
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
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).
Years after this stupid, FAILED mini-paper, another imbecile used this
to introduce the naive concept of REST ENERGY.

Take the energy E0 of the stationary object before the light is turn on:

The rest mass was declared as m0 = E0/c^2.

After the emission of L amount of energy, the object had a mass

m1 = E0/c^2 - L/c^2.


You can't write anything more fallacious and unproven than this shit.

Yet, it permeated physics for more than a century.


Nobody has been able to explain the rest energy of the electron being
mo.c^2,
even when:

1) The electron is NEVER AT REST.

2) The electron is an elementary particle, with no constituents.


RELATIVITY IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, SUPPORTED BY A MYRIAD OF FAILED
PHYSICISTS SINCE THE EARLY 1920s.

Loading...