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

On 03/07/2025 11:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 07.03.2025 o 20:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 03/07/2025 07:02 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 07.03.2025 o 15:07, Ross Finlayson pisze:

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,

>
But is Noether theorem somehow more
true than Pythagorean theorem and
other EG theorems announced false
by your insane guru?
>

>
Don't lump me in with your coat-tailing paper-hangers.
>
"Curved space-time", with a cosmological constant
that's a mathematical infinitesimal, so, flat,
yet, curving, and then Poincare completion, fulfills
the same model(s), plural, of Lorentz invariance,
as what all provide any "model of relativity".
>
Euclidean and all, ..., here from the pre-geometric world
as Husserl and Derrida put it from an axiomless geometry
that naturally arises from mathematical continuum itself.

>
And?
Is Noether theorem somehow more
true than Pythagorean theorem and
other EG theorems announced false
by your insane guru?
>

As a _physical_ model it's not the
same as a _mathematical_ model except
insofar as there is a _mathematical universe_
that _is_ the physical universe.
As a simple consequence of fundamental
continuity laws, conservation law as
the mathematical model in the physical interpretation,
is simple about energy and entelechy, which are
defined as the content and connections,
of the continuous manifold, whether you
call that "the field" or "space-time".
What, don't people even have these usual
concepts of mathematical model and physical
model and mathematical interpretation and
physical interpretation? It's part of the
language of science, they should know it.
As if they, "know", .... Of course that's un-scientific
at all, they don't even "know" what they "believe".
Einstein, regardless whether he was a bit riddled
and consequence of a sort of limited gene pool,
was a grandiose hedge and as a hedge he tempered
his more grandiose yet unsupportable ideas with
a bit more reasoned philosophy and physics,
that the only "insane gurus" are the second-hand
half-accounts and their coat-tailing wall-papering
of the usual fudge-coating half-account partial models.
Those _ignorant_ of mechanics and relativity theory
proper are no better.