Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2 (zero-eth)

On 03/09/2025 07:50 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/09/2025 05:02 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 08.03.2025 22:57, skrev rhertz:

>
I wasn't expecting less from you, Paul. A sad example of how dementia
has
eroded most of the little brain that nature gave you at birth.

>
And which statement of mine have you proven wrong with this
lethal argument?
>

>
By 1900, and for retarded assholes like you and Einstein, inertia and
mass WERE EQUIVALENT!

>
Indeed.
But Einstein, you and I know that what is conveyed with EM radiation
is not mass, but energy and momentum.
>
So when Einstein said:
"radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies"
his point is that energy has inertia.
So even if the emitting body is conveying energy and no mass to
the absorbing body, the mass of the emitting body will become less
while the mass of the absorbing body will increase.
>
Now we know that Einstein was right, E = mc² works both ways.
>
Pion decay:       m → γ + γ   energy, momentum and inertia conserved
Pair production:  γ → e⁻ + e⁺ energy, momentum and inertia conserved
>
Remember?
>

>
And that came from Newton First Law, 200 years in the past of Einstein's
time.

>
Right.
But Newton was wrong when he believed that mass always is conserved.
>

>
Real experimental and theoretical physicists (not the clerk case) were
using the more descriptive term mass instead of inertia, but THE
IMBECILE THAT YOU ADORE
had to name his micro-paper as: DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON
ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
>
See, asshole? He used INERTIA instead of MASS, just to use FANCY WORDING
in his fucking NANO-paper.
>
But he had to concede that he was talking about MASS all the time, when
he rescued (L/c^2) as the MASS in the Kinetic Energy LOOK-ALIKE
TRUNCATED EXPANSION OF GAMMA FACTOR USING McLAURIN.
>
>
But now you feel ENTITLED to figure out what the CRETIN meant when he
wrote his pico-paper?
>
The problem with people like you, gullible asshole who devoted a life
defending your pagan god and relativity is that you are THE PERFECT
TARGET OF THE KING OF CHARLATANS. And you're willing to give your life
for such a scoundrel.
>
>
I don't even feel sorry for you. You deserve what happened with you and
will pay for your sins in the FUCKING HELL, relativist.

>
But I feel sorry for you, who think you can falsify SR and GR  by use of
ad hominem and profanities.
>
You seem to have a very troubled mind.
>

>
"Maxwell's Laws" reflect either or both or ExB and DxH,
which one's "the mechanism" or "real" and the other derived,
make for that there multiple perspectices, in projection.
>
(Projection is also a word from psychology, which is
often itself very subjective. Here though it's that
matters of perspective and projection are relations
about the space of relations in geometry and for motion.)
>
The, "inertial momentum", and, "momental inertia", reflect
two different ideas about the same thing, about "inertia"
and "immovable object" and "momentum" and "unstoppable force".
>
The momentum, as a quantity, is not overall conserved in
kinematics, as with regards to it coming out of the wash,
from what is a linear model in kinetics and momentum,
where it's conserved insofar as vector addition goes,
that "immovable object" and "unstoppable force" are
ideals in sense, or, singularities, in what result
multplicity theories, because every singularity theory
is a multiplicity theory.
>
Then, that the linear and rotational for kinetics and
kinematics are fundamentally different, or "worlds turn",
has that Lorentz has many solutions vis-a-vis the configuration
of experiment, and that the linear and rotational are
different, and particularly space-contraction in the linear
has the space moving along, and in the rotational, moving
around.
>
Light is different than otherwise electromagnetic radiation,
that color and energy of intensity of light rays and then
also as with regards to nuclear radiation and the ionizing
nuclear radiation rays, and, vibrations or radio waves in
the electromagnetic field, in the electromagnetic and
electromagnetic, has that there are three different values
that are "c", according to somebody like O.W. Richardson,
and, there's Lorentz-Fitzgerald Lorentz-Fresnel then
Lorentz-Maxwell-Einstein and Lorentz-Maxwell-Faraday,
or, for something like Lorentz-Maxwell-Finlay-Freundlich
for Lorentz-Maxwell-Einstein.
>
>
Here though about classical mechanics, and, super-classical
mechanics, and zero-eth laws of motion and "worlds turn"
after a deconstructive account of unstoppable forces and
immovable objects, momentum is just a particular linear
moment in a simplified kinetics and it's not necessarily
in this sort of model a conserved quantity, as with regards
to that inertia as relates to mass, is. (In space-frames
and frame-spaces in the linear and rotational.)
>
>
So, mechanics itself deserved a deconstructive and
structuralist account along these lines since that
reason can arrive at it can be so rebuilt this way.
>
>
>
>
>

One way to look at Lorentzian invariance contra Galilean invariance
is that Lorentz invariance is _not_ Galilean invariance,
instead of the other way around, that on the outside
is a more _free_ or _less_ constrained, than that on the
inside that there's a _more_ constrained, resulting system
of equations.
Then as with regards to that "force is a function of time" instead
of that "force is a classical linear impulse", has that it's so with
regards to the _defined_ and _derived_, all about the more
_derived_ and less _defined_.
Yet, in _inner_ products and _outer_ products, what makes
the more _derived_ from a definition one way, may be
_less_ derived from the definition either way, and with
regards to what makes for _expansion_ of comprehension,
and what makes for _restriction_ of comprehension, that
in axiomatics what makes for _expansion_ of comprehension
widens definition while what makes for _restriction_ of
comprehension narrows definition.
These are terms from logic and have these perfect meanings,
then though that also logically the logical _reduction_ as a
severe abstraction, always leaves remaining the wider complement,
besides that it may make some applications of mathematical models
sensible, fungible, and tractable.
So, the abstraction of energy equivalency, is local, and in the
point/local/global/total, is a _narrowing_ of things which
have a _wider_ domain of definition. Then, the usual accounts
also _ignore_ the nuclear, and _conflate_ the optical and
electromagnetic and electromagnetic, and _lose_ thusly the connection
between the resulting simplified half-account and usually partial
mathematical model like the Galilean or Lorentzian claim to arrive at,
and, the "Poincare completion" or otherwise what keeps the
entelechy of these energies, continuous.