Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2 (+ ...)

On 03/07/2025 02:06 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 03/06/2025 08:18 AM, rhertz wrote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 8:38:47 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 05.03.2025 19:11, skrev rhertz:

>
I question your assertion that E = mc? work both ways (mc? = E). This IS
NOT AN EQUATION! This is a 1-way expression, which doesn't work
reversing terms positions.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
>
? ? e? + e?

>
I asked you not to come with the particle physics shit.
>
Tell me about MATTER created by energy anywhere, in scales above the
mysterious quantum world (of which, BTW, nobody knows shit even after
100 years).
>
Do you have one example of 1 gramm of MATTER created by energy? (The
reverse case of the stupid end in the 1905 Einstein's paper).
>
No? Then, the inverse relationship m=E/c^2 DOESN'T WORK. Purely
FICTIONAL.

>
Conservation is the same thing as constant creation and destruction.

>
Not really.
A static equilibrium is not the same as a dynamic equilibrium.
>
Jan
>

Noether's theorem about invariances can instead be
written as continuity laws, a bit more inclusive
than the conservation laws, while still being
quite thoroughly a conservation law.
A static equilibrium doesn't exist in nature,
everything is always at equilibrium while
falling to equilibrium, as in accords with
a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action
least-gradient, theory.
Anyways creation & destruction accompanies conservation
in all the theory until such time as was arrived at
picking one as a "severe abstraction" about "mechanical
reduction", it's a half-account.
The e = mc^2 is derived from K.E. as the first
term of the Taylor series expansion, the rest
discarded, so it's an approximation and there's
a nominally non-zero error term, then there's
Einstein's second-most famous mass-energy equivalency
derivation, from "Out of My Later Years", that of
course makes for that the linear and rotational
are entirely separate milieus.
Then, electrodynamics has at least three things
that are "c", and, they are not the same things.
So, SR-ians thinking they "defined" e=mc^2,
are truncations.
Optical light is special and not the same
thing as electromagnetic radiation.