Re: Relativity theory from other angles

On 10/18/2024 09:22 PM, rhertz wrote:

Go and read carefully the last part of the 1905 paper, where Einstein
derived L/c² = m.
>
He used ONLY the first term of a McLaurin series, which is valid for v/c
ratio lower than 0.1. Above this, the error using that interpretation of
Kinetic Energy (1/2 m v²) is unacceptable by any means.
>
The expression over which he worked is at the final part of the paper:
>
>
L.(Y-1) = L . 1/2 x²  . (1 + 3/4 x² + 15/24 x⁴ + 105/192 x⁶ + ..)
>
where x = v/c
>
Einstein tried 7 times to correct this limitation, from 1906 to 1942,
when he finally gave up to find an expression of L/c² = m valid for the
whole range of v up to c.
>
>
If you try to affirm that, in the above expression, using more McLaurin
terms make L/c² = m valid for values of v > 0.1c, without incurring in
major physical and conceptual errors, you have to rethink it all over.
>
For instance, you could say that using x = v/c = 1/2 gives a
MULTIPLICAND of the basic KE, like
>
>
1/2 (L/c²) v²  . (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)
>
then you are delusional and also violate every single concept of
newtonian mechanics since 1800, at least.
>
You CAN'T ABUSE of gullibility of people like Einstein did with such
disgusting paper, WHICH IS WRONG from any approach that you make on it.
>
In the best case, it would be directing you to think (erroneously) that
the RELATIVISTIC EXPRESSION OF MASS in Kinetic Energy is:
>
M = Mo (1 + 3/4 . 1/4 + 15/24 . 1/16 + 105/192 . 1/64 + ..)
>
>
M = Mo (1 + 3/16 + 15/384 + 105/12288 + ..)
>
It would not look pretty to derive a new equation
>
E = 1.235107422  Mo c²
>
****************
>
I would prefer Hassenhorl's derivation of E = 4/3 Mo c², developed in
March of 1905 and in the same Annalen der Physik, paper that Einstein
plagiarized BY THE OLD TRICK OF REVERSE ENGINEERING. Only that
Hassenhorl derived it FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM (A BLACK BOX), while Einstein
failed miserably by working with an OPEN SYSTEM (equations don't work).
>
>
But, it's just me.
>
>
A legion of imbeciles bought the crap written in only 2 pages, by
November 1905.

The MacLaurin is just the zero case for Taylor series, sure,
just like Clairaut is the zero case for Fourier series,
then that something like MacLaurin/Clairaut intends to
combine the features of the differential and power series
into a combined sort of analysis as with regards to then
what fits together of that, what decomposability there is
of that, as with regards to most usual developments in
the Fourier-style analysis and the Taylor-style analysis,
and others.
It reminds that the other day that one of Freundlich's
1923 papers was published to Gutenberg, about gravity
as was the theory of the day.
Here you mention, "reverse engineering", and it's sort
of the idea.
It's like, "when are Laplacians ever wrong if you
look at them from various other angles" and it's
like "well, if they have straight lines, ...".
So it looks like we're looking at quite a few now
other various derivations just kind of gathering
dust that under various conditions or representing
various systems, are real and invariant as the
parameters the implicits making where they're: natural.
Then the natural is really the goal, all about the natural.