The HOAX of E=mc². Documented history since 1898.

Post by rhertz
That there was a relationship between energy and mass was suspected
since the last years of XIX century.
By 1899, Poincaré derived such a relationship by using a thought
experiment with a "light cannon" and its recoil, once it shot a pulse of
light. By equating the energy of the light pulse and the recoil of such
a cannon, it lead him to attribute to electromagnetic radiation a mass
equal to E/c? where E is the total energy of the radiation.
https://www.bjp-bg.com/papers/bjp2019_2_081-093.pdf
But Thomson, Lorentz, Heaviside and many others were closing the
approach to this concept by using measurements of the recently
discovered electron.
1. (Lorentz and others): Energy of an electron at rest E = e?/R
2. Charge e (Planck 1900): e = 4.69E-10 esu (g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1)
3. Ratio e/m (Thomson 1900): e/m = 6.32766E+17 esu/g
OR m/e = 1.58036E-18 g/esu
4. Mass of electron (1900): m = (m/e) e = 7.4119E-28 g
5. Radius of an electron (1907, Rutherford, others): R = 1.11E-14 cm
6. Energy stored in an electron (1907): E = 1.976E-05 erg or g.cm?/s?

[snip nonsense about relativity based on your misconceptions]

Your complete cluelessness wrt physics and the history of it
is coming through again.
In 1900, Lorentz, Thomson, and friends didn't have an idea
of what the electron mass or charge might be.
All they had, from Thomson's measurements of 1897,
was the e/m ratio.
The electron mass was completey unknown until Millikan, (in 1909)
measured the electron charge.
The smallness of the electron mass came as a complete surprise.

Lorentz' 'electrons' like in his 'Theory of electrons'
have nothing to do with actual electrons.
That's why Lorentz and Einstein couldn't and didn't discuss
the electron mass at all.
They were not predicting the mass,
they were predicting (correctly of course)
how the mass should vary with velocity,
(in the terms of 1900)

Jan

rhertz

2024-10-26 16:36:01 UTC

Post by rhertz
That there was a relationship between energy and mass was suspected
since the last years of XIX century.
By 1899, PoincarÃ© derived such a relationship by using a thought
experiment with a "light cannon" and its recoil, once it shot a pulse of
light. By equating the energy of the light pulse and the recoil of such
a cannon, it lead him to attribute to electromagnetic radiation a mass
equal to E/c? where E is the total energy of the radiation.
https://www.bjp-bg.com/papers/bjp2019_2_081-093.pdf
But Thomson, Lorentz, Heaviside and many others were closing the
approach to this concept by using measurements of the recently
discovered electron.
1. (Lorentz and others): Energy of an electron at rest E = e?/R
2. Charge e (Planck 1900): e = 4.69E-10 esu (g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1)
3. Ratio e/m (Thomson 1900): e/m = 6.32766E+17 esu/g
OR m/e = 1.58036E-18 g/esu
4. Mass of electron (1900): m = (m/e) e = 7.4119E-28 g
5. Radius of an electron (1907, Rutherford, others): R = 1.11E-14 cm
6. Energy stored in an electron (1907): E = 1.976E-05 erg or g.cm?/s?

[snip nonsense about relativity based on your misconceptions]
Your complete cluelessness wrt physics and the history of it
is coming through again.
In 1900, Lorentz, Thomson, and friends didn't have an idea
of what the electron mass or charge might be.
All they had, from Thomson's measurements of 1897,
was the e/m ratio.
The electron mass was completey unknown until Millikan, (in 1909)
measured the electron charge.
The smallness of the electron mass came as a complete surprise.
Lorentz' 'electrons' like in his 'Theory of electrons'
have nothing to do with actual electrons.
That's why Lorentz and Einstein couldn't and didn't discuss
the electron mass at all.
They were not predicting the mass,
they were predicting (correctly of course)
how the mass should vary with velocity,
(in the terms of 1900)
Jan

Jan, as you are an imbecile ignorant, I prefer to forgive your profound
lack of knowledge of the history of physics.

Me, I invested many years researching about how classic physicists and
chemists opened the door to new findings that, cumulatively, brought us
to the know-how from the 1500s to the end of the XX Century.

And I did it with pleasure, finding that history of physics is EQUALLY
IMPORTANT as physics itself (sometimes MORE).

When I wrote that Planck had derived the charge of the electron by 1900,
I meant it. But you are too stupid to assimilate history of science. You
are stuck with the information of one or two High School books, and
repeat things like a fucking relativistic parrot.

LEARN ABOUT OTHER WORKS OF PLANCK, IMBECILE, AND READ THE ATTACHED
TABLE.

And regarding the highly promoted Millikan (that you idealized), he ONLY
GOT A REASONABLE VALUE BY 1913, being prior experiments A FAILURE.

Read and LEARN, IDIOT!

https://www.scielo.br/j/rbef/a/XMkjKHvTWdsTF9k5HF6Vzwv/?lang=en&format=pdf

Max Planckâs Determination of the Avogadro Constant

rhertz

2024-10-26 18:07:24 UTC

Stupid Jan:

I forgot to REMARK that, by the year 1900, the charge of the electron
WAS CALCULATED BY PLANCK, with an error lower than 0.5% with respect to
current values.

So, by knowing (in the year 1900) the relationship (e/m) (or m/e), due
to Thomson, AMY PHYSICIST KNEW THE MASS OF THE ELECTRON by 1900. In this
way:

(m/e) x e = m

Do you understand this, Jan?

I think that you are a delusional negationist, who will REJECT these
absolutely true historical facts.

Through Rutherford's team, by 1907, the radius of Beta radiation
particles (AKA electrons) was also ESTIMATED.

So, what I wrote IS TRUE in terms of historical facts. What you wrote
came from a HS textbook for imbecile relativists. So, what you have into
your head as facts are pure bullshit, ignorant.

Here it goes, again:

***********************************************

This was known by 1900 (values in c.g.s. system):

1. (Lorentz and others): Energy of an electron at rest E = e²/R

2. Charge e (Planck 1900): e = 4.69E-10 esu (g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1)

3. Ratio e/m (Thomson 1900): e/m = 6.32766E+17 esu/g

OR m/e = 1.58036E-18 g/esu

4. Mass of electron (1900): m = (m/e) e = 7.4119E-28 g

5. Radius of an electron (1907, Rutherford, others): R = 1.11E-14 cm

6. Energy stored in an electron (1907): E = 1.976E-05 erg or g.cm²/s²

1 erg = 6.2400E+11 eV

So, E = 12.329 MeV, by 1907.

*********************************************

Jan = IGNORANT IDIOT + LIAR + DECEIVER + RELATIVIST + CHARLATAN

J. J. Lodder

2024-11-13 22:26:34 UTC

There you go again, clueless as usual.
Maxwell himself already predicted radiation pressure,
and he knew that EM fields must have energy.
Again, 'everyone' knew that in the late 19th century.
It was used extensively to extend thermodynamics
to include EM fields.
Maxwell was hardly original in this.
Kepler already postullated radiation pressure,
from the observation of comet tails being blown away from the sun,
but he could not quantify it.
Lebedev confirmed Maxwell's prediction quantitatively in 1900.
Poincare's thought experiment is merely a demonstration,

Jan

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 00:35:53 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 00:46:54 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

Hey, maybe now you just solved why Casimir force needn't
have photons be electromagnetic, wow, you've just up-ended
an entire reason why mass-less charge-less photons are
any old thing needed to fit!

Or that it's photometric Casimir force, ....

These days some numb-skulls even say photons have mass
on the order of 10^10 less than an atom. Which is small, ....

Yet, they never arrive at it having charge, ....

Oh well, at least Einstein has "yes, ..., there is an ether
hypothesis and thus space in a sense plain exists", ...,
so light has somewhere to fly.

... and a clock hypothesis.

These days you ask physicists "what's photons" and half
of them are like "what do you want it to be, ...", which
is a usual sort of joke about those willing to leave out
their scruples for scrip.

You know, in linacs, the tracks end up looking pretty long,
while in ring cyclotrons, they warm up for a while, ...,
as with regards to what "numbers" they give the SR-ians.

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 01:07:38 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

Hey, maybe now you just solved why Casimir force needn't
have photons be electromagnetic, wow, you've just up-ended
an entire reason why mass-less charge-less photons are
any old thing needed to fit!
Or that it's photometric Casimir force, ....
These days some numb-skulls even say photons have mass
on the order of 10^10 less than an atom. Which is small, ....
Yet, they never arrive at it having charge, ....
Oh well, at least Einstein has "yes, ..., there is an ether
hypothesis and thus space in a sense plain exists", ...,
so light has somewhere to fly.
... and a clock hypothesis.
These days you ask physicists "what's photons" and half
of them are like "what do you want it to be, ...", which
is a usual sort of joke about those willing to leave out
their scruples for scrip.
You know, in linacs, the tracks end up looking pretty long,
while in ring cyclotrons, they warm up for a while, ...,
as with regards to what "numbers" they give the SR-ians.

It's usually considered that the lower energy photons
make heat, and the higher energy photons make
ionizing radiation, in accords with how they're not
reflected instead absorbed and perhaps transmitted.

Then, particularly organized systems like the photoreceptors
of plant cells or the CCD's, have carefully contrived means
to arrive at a usual sort of photosynthetically active radiation
or the green/gray luminance and the red/blue chrominance
channels, of usual sorts electronic imaging devices.

Yeah, though, it sort of boggles people that heat
can be transmitted as via optical radiation when
the vacuum of space is not much of a thermal
insulator.

Then of course there's a very great sort of establishment
of the opto-electronic effect, for various what are
called "junctions", when the energy within a photon,
at a junction, makes an exchange, a transition of the
_form_ of its energy, to an electron in electron physics,
then that the frequency and wavelength of an electron
are according to light's photons, while, the energy of
the photons, are according to the e/m ratio of electron
physics, in the world of atomic physics.

That is to say, the intensity of the surface of the illumination
according to intensity and the coherence of the light,
is related thusly to the current across a surface or according
moreso to a condenser, helping explain why these atomically
fine quantities are exactly related to gross bulk aggregates.

Then there's a whole zoo of virtual photons that are
really "non-chalant-ons" or "ag-nost-ions", yet those
are mostly only so that QED doesn't feel bad being
not a particle theory.

The optical light's photons are "rays", though, and
the nuclear radiation besides what immediately
ionizes, is also "rays".

(The, "beams", are mostly reserved for more contrived
particular organizations of collimated rays.)

Yeah, the particle/wave way of wavelength,
is sort of light's.

Then it's like, "electron, you're photonic radiation".

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 01:53:53 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

Hey, maybe now you just solved why Casimir force needn't
have photons be electromagnetic, wow, you've just up-ended
an entire reason why mass-less charge-less photons are
any old thing needed to fit!
Or that it's photometric Casimir force, ....
These days some numb-skulls even say photons have mass
on the order of 10^10 less than an atom. Which is small, ....
Yet, they never arrive at it having charge, ....
Oh well, at least Einstein has "yes, ..., there is an ether
hypothesis and thus space in a sense plain exists", ...,
so light has somewhere to fly.
... and a clock hypothesis.
These days you ask physicists "what's photons" and half
of them are like "what do you want it to be, ...", which
is a usual sort of joke about those willing to leave out
their scruples for scrip.
You know, in linacs, the tracks end up looking pretty long,
while in ring cyclotrons, they warm up for a while, ...,
as with regards to what "numbers" they give the SR-ians.

It's usually considered that the lower energy photons
make heat, and the higher energy photons make
ionizing radiation, in accords with how they're not
reflected instead absorbed and perhaps transmitted.
Then, particularly organized systems like the photoreceptors
of plant cells or the CCD's, have carefully contrived means
to arrive at a usual sort of photosynthetically active radiation
or the green/gray luminance and the red/blue chrominance
channels, of usual sorts electronic imaging devices.
Yeah, though, it sort of boggles people that heat
can be transmitted as via optical radiation when
the vacuum of space is not much of a thermal
insulator.
Then of course there's a very great sort of establishment
of the opto-electronic effect, for various what are
called "junctions", when the energy within a photon,
at a junction, makes an exchange, a transition of the
_form_ of its energy, to an electron in electron physics,
then that the frequency and wavelength of an electron
are according to light's photons, while, the energy of
the photons, are according to the e/m ratio of electron
physics, in the world of atomic physics.
That is to say, the intensity of the surface of the illumination
according to intensity and the coherence of the light,
is related thusly to the current across a surface or according
moreso to a condenser, helping explain why these atomically
fine quantities are exactly related to gross bulk aggregates.
Then there's a whole zoo of virtual photons that are
really "non-chalant-ons" or "ag-nost-ions", yet those
are mostly only so that QED doesn't feel bad being
not a particle theory.
The optical light's photons are "rays", though, and
the nuclear radiation besides what immediately
ionizes, is also "rays".
(The, "beams", are mostly reserved for more contrived
particular organizations of collimated rays.)
Yeah, the particle/wave way of wavelength,
is sort of light's.
Then it's like, "electron, you're photonic radiation".

It's a careful balancing act,
and quite much so very, very neat,
a tetrad of quantities, forces, and fields,
in a trio of frames,
on the outside super-symmetry,
the macro-, micro-, and meso- scale,
all falling together.

J. J. Lodder

2024-11-14 10:51:42 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

??? Why latest? Radiation pressure (and radiation recoil)
is routinely observed and accounted for
in the observation and calculation of satellite orbits.
It may cost real money, in fuel for station keeping,
so it must be real,

Jan

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 20:12:08 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

So, Casimir is as much photometric as electromagnetic?

The visible light is really kind of special, and what
with it having zero charge and zero mass, that the
electromagnetic wave-particles as they may be as well
have energy indicated by frequency and wavelength,
about radiation like chaleur and heat and radiation
like pull-downs in the electrical field, have a sort
of usual notion that heat's 0 and the electrical field 1.

Then, with regards to information and the tachyonic,
Einstein long ago split GR and SR into spatial and "spacial",
and put GR first, and clarified SR as "local",
or at least in his theory of "relativity, of motion",
and as with regards to the L-principle, that light's speed,
in deep space, in a vacuum, is a constant, that being it.

So fluctuations in the electrical field, and
warmth in the space,
are quite two different things,
and WMAP of course found in the CMBR
both, BOTH: heat and microwaves.

Which "the theories" did NOT predict.

Cerenkov is another example of the
braking radiation about the nuclear radiation,
Brehmsstrahlung and the braking radiation.

Coriolis of course is merely a global mechanical thing,
then though that's there's Compton.

Casimir / Cerenkov / Compton: light is _not_ electromagnetic.

Ross Finlayson

2024-11-14 23:18:30 UTC

Yeah, according to SR, the latest in the line of "solar sail"
experiments should be doing perfectly fine.

So, Casimir is as much photometric as electromagnetic?
The visible light is really kind of special, and what
with it having zero charge and zero mass, that the
electromagnetic wave-particles as they may be as well
have energy indicated by frequency and wavelength,
about radiation like chaleur and heat and radiation
like pull-downs in the electrical field, have a sort
of usual notion that heat's 0 and the electrical field 1.
Then, with regards to information and the tachyonic,
Einstein long ago split GR and SR into spatial and "spacial",
and put GR first, and clarified SR as "local",
or at least in his theory of "relativity, of motion",
and as with regards to the L-principle, that light's speed,
in deep space, in a vacuum, is a constant, that being it.
So fluctuations in the electrical field, and
warmth in the space,
are quite two different things,
and WMAP of course found in the CMBR
both, BOTH: heat and microwaves.
Which "the theories" did NOT predict.
Cerenkov is another example of the
braking radiation about the nuclear radiation,
Brehmsstrahlung and the braking radiation.
Coriolis of course is merely a global mechanical thing,
then though that's there's Compton.
Casimir / Cerenkov / Compton: light is _not_ electromagnetic.

Much like "Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs" have been seeing
much revisiting about "real wave collapse, red/blue bias,
and the doublet and Little Higgs".

Since I mentioned it about a decade ago, ....

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

2024-11-15 05:04:07 UTC