Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote:

In what is considered as the first experimental proof of Einstein's 1905
E = mc² paper, 27 years after (1932), the English physicist John
Cockroft and the Irish physicist Ernest Walton produced a nuclear
disintegration by bombarding Lithium with artificially accelerated
protons.
>
They used beams of protons accelerated with 600,000 Volts to strike
Lithium7 atoms, which resulted in the creation of two alpha particles.
The experiment was celebrated as a proof of E = mc², even when the
results were closer to E = 3/4 mc², BUT NOBODY WANTED TO NOTICE THIS!
>
For this paper, Cockcroft and Walton won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics
for their work on the FIRST artificial transmutation of atomic nuclei,
not for proving E = mc², a FALSE CLAIM still used by relativists.
>
Cockcroft and Walton NEVER HAD IN MIND to prove E = mc², as it can be
shown in his 1932 publication, nor they mentioned Einstein even once:
>
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133
>
Yet, relativists hurried to celebrate the experiment as a triumph of
Einstein's theories, because they needed such accomplishment to
celebrate the veracity of their pseudoscience.
>
The equation for their experiment was the following:
>
>
7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy
>
From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932):
>
>
Lithium7 amu 7.0104
Hydrogen amu 1.0072
        8.0176
>
Helium amu 4.0011
Helium amu 4.0011
        8.0022
>
Difference  0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 ± 2.7 MeV
>
The difference in energy using E = mc², with 2024 NIST values, varies
from -2.1% to -49.7%, AVERAGING almost -25%.
>
CURIOUSLY, the average error over hundred of measurements is EXACTLY the
factor 0.75 of the Hassenohrl's formula  E = 3/4 mc².
>
What happened with the history of this experiment. Was it re-written
since THIS single experiment, NEVER EVER REPEATED, to hype Einstein?
>
---------------------------------------------------
>
These are the values with NIST 2024:
>
>
Lithium7 amu 7.0160034366
Hydrogen amu 1.00782503223
        8.02382846883
>
Helium amu 4.00260325413
Helium amu 4.00260325413
        8.00520650826
>
Difference  0.01862196057 amu
         17.36590E+07 MeV
>
************************************************************
>
INTERESTING: 92 years after the 1932 experiment, NIST managed to correct
the amu of the elements, so the difference FITS with E = mc².
>
WORSE YET: In the Manhattan booklet "Los Alamos Primer", written by
Serber & Oppenheimer in 1943, to instruct scientists recruited for the
project, the calculations WRITTEN THERE were based on electrostatic
repulsion of split atoms, which ALSO DIFFER IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT with the
infamous 200 MeV computed by Meitner and her nephew in 1939.
>
Serber, on his 1992 book, affirmed that nuclear fission WAS UNRELATED to
E = mc², and that the fission process was NON-RELATIVISTIC.
>
Yet, just after WWII finished, the infamous Time Magazine cover had the
figure of Einstein and the nuclear cloud with E = mc² written on it.
Time Magazine was widely known as an outlet of Jewish propaganda, and
still is (what was left of it).
>
>
So, Hassenohrl was the real deal and Einstein the Jewish icon to be
hyper-hyped as the most important physicist since Babylon times?
>
>
From 1932 to 1943, the brightest minds involved in EXPERIMENTAL nuclear
fission DIDN'T SUPPORT E = mc².
>
The above FACT has to count, and open the eyes of most. The drive to
reinstall the genius of Einstein and relativity re-started in the early
'50s, and never did stop (cosmology, particle physics, etc.).
>
We live in a world of lies and INFAMOUS reconstruction of history, and I
mean ALL THE HISTORY.

How can E=mc^2 when the exact same mass of one substance is converted
into a different amount of energy than another substance? "In his
memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with Einstein,
including one where he asked the point-blank question : do your theories
relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally blunt answer
‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a small scale would
not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a Cosmopolitan’ by
Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)” [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN
WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.] “And as for the
claim that his E = M22 prefigures the huge amounts of energy that can be
released by breaking up an atom, his equation deals with the supposed
conversion of mass into energy but the mass in an atom is not destroyed
in a nuclear explosion. It is simply broken into smaller particles. Furthermore, his equation implies that the amount of energy held in a
body depends only on the amount of mass, not what it is a mass of. All
substances are considered to be the same, mass for mass, as generators
of energy. Except we know they aren’t. If you split an atom of uranium
it releases more than two and a half million more units of energy than
an atom of carbon while the fusion of deuterium into helium delivers 400
times the ‘oomph’ of uranium.” [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The
Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]