Re: The HOAX of E=mc?. Documented history since 1898.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 8:19:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>

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.
>
This was known by 1900 (values in c.g.s. system):
>
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 Planck’s Determination of the Avogadro Constant