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

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:57:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 07.03.2025 19:47, skrev rhertz:

>
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
By A. EINSTEIN.   September 27, 1905
>
QUOTE FINAL WORDS OF THE 1905 MINI-PAPER:
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable
to a
high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put
to the
test.
>
If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
between the
emitting and absorbing bodies".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
So, the natural-born cretin MADE YOU BELIEVE about TELEPORTING. You saw
how his idiotic comment was widely used in Star Trek OS, 60 years in the
future.

>
So if "radiation conveys inertia" then radiation is TELEPORTING mass?
>
:-D
>
The phrase:
"radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies"
can only mean:
"radiation conveys momentum between the emitting and absorbing bodies".
>
According to Maxwell a "wave-complex" limited in time and space
(could be a photon) will have a momentum p = E/c where E is
the energy of the wave-complex.
>
According to Newtonian mechanics:
If we have two stationary objects, each with mass m₀, and a
wave-complex with momentum p is emitted from one of the bodies
and absorbed by the other, then the speed of the bodies will become
v = p/m₀ in opposite directions, and the momentum of the bodies will
be p in opposite directions.
>
Momentum and inertia is conveyed between the bodies.
>

>
BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!

>
And by sending that message, Kirk has TELEPORTED a bit of mass to
Scotty. Right? :-D
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
Comment for knowledgeable lurkers:

<snip stupidities from a certified idiot>
I wasn't expecting less from you, Paul. A sad example of how dementia
has
eroded most of the little brain that nature gave you at birth.
By 1900, and for retarded assholes like you and Einstein, inertia and
mass WERE EQUIVALENT!
And that came from Newton First Law, 200 years in the past of Einstein's
time.
Real experimental and theoretical physicists (not the clerk case) were
using the more descriptive term mass instead of inertia, but THE
IMBECILE THAT YOU ADORE
had to name his micro-paper as: DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON
ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
See, asshole? He used INERTIA instead of MASS, just to use FANCY WORDING
in his fucking NANO-paper.
But he had to concede that he was talking about MASS all the time, when
he rescued (L/c^2) as the MASS in the Kinetic Energy LOOK-ALIKE
TRUNCATED EXPANSION OF GAMMA FACTOR USING McLAURIN.
But now you feel ENTITLED to figure out what the CRETIN meant when he
wrote his pico-paper?
The problem with people like you, gullible asshole who devoted a life
defending your pagan god and relativity is that you are THE PERFECT
TARGET OF THE KING OF CHARLATANS. And you're willing to give your life
for such a scoundrel.
I don't even feel sorry for you. You deserve what happened with you and
will pay for your sins in the FUCKING HELL, relativist.