Re: Einstein FRAUD with the paper on m=E/c^2

On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:06:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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.

>
Too difficult for you?
>

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).

>
At CERN, among other places.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen>
Thousands of anti-atoms, so far, created from (lots of!) energy.
Matter, mind you, stationary, in a trap,
not just charged particles flying by.
>

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).

>
You are just being silly here. One gram equals 10^14 Joule,
which is the output of a gigawatt power plant for a whole day.
Given the extremely low conversion efficiencies,
the creation of one gram of anti-hydrogen would use up more energy
than all of humanity taken together can generate.
>
Jan

Imbecile Jan: for the macroworld, I propose two 1-Ways equations to
replace
the crap of E=mc^2. Apply them to nuclear reactors or some shit of equal
size:
E = 0.6 mc^2  (valid for m > 1,000 Kg)
m = 0.0000000000000000001 E/c^2   (valid for E > 10^18 Joules).
Science should do get it a try.