Re: Want to prove E=mc²? University labs should try this!

On 11/16/2024 08:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/16/2024 04:46 PM, rhertz wrote:

HEY!, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU CAN CONFIRM OR DISPROVE E=mc².

>
Yet, mightn't it be "heft", instead of, "mass", the equivalent,
and only detectable as according to resisting acceleration?
>
>
Have you ever noticed that a football may maintain a linear
and not parabolically descending trajectory while it
radiates from its spiraling an imbued "heft" as inertial
and as with regards to, "classical mechanics"?
>
Then, though, it would be "not falsifying" e = mc^2, ....
This is science there's no "confirm" or "disprove",
only "falsify" or "not falsify".
>
When studying the Magnus effect, many experiments have
arrived at the empirical effects and related them to
the aerodynamic or hydrodynamic basically after Bernoulli
principle, yet, it's noted there's "unexplained" a
residual amount of, "heft", merely due a sort of
"gyroscopic action", "Magnus heft", as it were.
>
Then, this is in, "mechanics", proper, where "mechanical reduction"
was long ago abandoned itself, with the theory of the day not
having much to say either way about it, being only "in the limit",
that though it speaks to "classical mechanics" itself, in case
that it's something that university labs have already tried
many times and have an unexplained empirical bit.
>
>
Einstein's second most-famous mass-energy equivalency
derivation, arrives at that it's only in the rotational
setting the, relativistic mass, equivalency.
>
The first one is plain linear K.E. the first term of
the Taylor series, which is one of the most widely employed
analytical series in physics, though sometimes it's only
the first term, other times only the rest, for examples,
according to "what makes sense physically".
>
The SR's not GR's one there by itself is actually after
a definition and "derived", as it were. SR's sort
of detached from principles, in this sense.
>
>

The "Magnus heft" is also very evident in rifling,
where "Magnus effect" itself would only result drift,
that "Magnus heft" result that empirically it's
very much so that it's a feature of, "classical",
mechanics, that lives in the under-definition under-neath
the usual classical laws, since mathematics requires
an infinitary expression to make sense of it.
So, all this talk of relativity theory and particle
mechanics, founded as it is and "in the limit" as it is,
the classical mechanics, is already rather lop-sided
when the very definitions of classical mechanics,
are less-than-altogether defined, under-defined,
or over/under, defined.
You all should look to your classical mechanics
as to why there's all the classical mechanics
that goes into the classical mechanics
since one can notice the usual theory is
at least always trading "classical" and "fictitious",
and further what they must always add up.
So, this is something of course that many university
labs or the empirical setting already find very
much so, "heft", as inertial, what with regards to
the usual vis-viva and vis-motrix, why what happens
is that the theory needs to get into the "Zero-eth"
laws since it's rather already tangled itself, up above.