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

On 03/07/2025 06:07 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

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.
>
>

"Physics:  it's an open system."
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Yeah, I know, go Buckingham-Pi yourself.