Sujet : Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2
De : nospam (at) *nospam* de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 07. Mar 2025, 11:06:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : De Ster
Message-ID : <67cac50f$1$16841$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
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
Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2
Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2