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

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.