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

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 0:35:15 +0000, rhertz wrote:

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? (Sept 1905)
>
Einstein start this paper with an equation derived on his previous paper
on Electrodynamics (SR). It represents the energy l* of a planar wave of
light with energy l, as PERCEIVED from a reference frame moving at speed
v as:
>
l* = l γ (1 - v cos φ)
>
where
>
γ = (1 - v² /c²)^-1/2
φ; angle of the ray with respect the x-axis.
>
He propose to use this equation from his previous paper in the following
way:
>
A stationary body in the system K has an energy E0.
The energy of the body perceived in the system k, moving at v speed is
H0.
>
The stationary body emit twin beams of light in opposite directions,
each with energy L/2.
The energy of the body in the stationary system K, after the emission of
light, is E1.
>
E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
>
The energy of the body, as perceived in in the moving system k, after
the emission of light, is H1.
>
H1 = H0 - L/2 γ (1 - v cos φ) - L/2 γ (1 +- v cos φ) = H0 - γ L
>
Then, Einstein inserts the equation for the difference of the energy
between  K and k before and after the emission of the twin beam of light
as:
>
H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1)
>
Using a McLaurin expansion of γ for (v/c) << 1
>
γ = 1 + 1/2 (v/c)² + 3/4  (v/c)⁴ + 15/24  (v/c)⁶ + 105/192  (v/c)⁸ + ..
>
and dismissing terms higher than the quadratic one, the difference of
energies between K and k is set as
>
H0 - E0 - (H1 - E1) = L (γ - 1) ≈  1/2 (L/c)² v²
>
As the approximation  1/2 (L/c²) v² RESEMBLES the equation of kinetic
energy IF (L/c²) is taken as MASS (inertia), Einstein jumped to the
conclusion:
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its MASS
diminishes
by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy
of
radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more
general
conclusion that
>
The MASS of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
changes
by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020, the energy being
measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.
>
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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This conclusion has been criticized by all, starting with Planck in
1907. He concluded that this is a fallacy
>
based on a circular argument (petitio principii), because it starts by
asserting what he wanted to prove.
>
The most striking FRAUD is that he didn't prove that the mass of the
object APPARENTLY diminished by (L/c²).
>
The only thing that he asserted at the beginning of the mini-paper is
that the energy of the object changed by L, after the emission of the
twin beams of light:
>
E1 = E0 - L/2 - L/2 = E0 - L
>
Here is the CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (fallacy, lie, fraudulent manipulation):
He started by ASSUMING that there is a relationship between mass and
energy on the object as a starting point. He never used, until the end
of the paper, that the body has a given mass M+ L/c² in the state E0,
and that bit of mass was lost as energy.
>
Einstein tried to fix this paper SIX TIMES, giving up in 1942.
>
HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A THIEF.
>
Yet, generations of imbeciles did join the CULT OF THIS PSEUDOSCIENCE.
>
BTW: That E = mc² WAS NEVER, EVER theoretically proven. Not by von Laue
in 1911 or by Klein in 1919. And even less for the wide range of v
speeds between 0 and c.
>
As I said for years, E = mc² WAS ADOPTED AS A CONVENIENT RELATIONSHIP to
simplify operations in physics and chemistry (and generally adopted in
other MINOR branches).

RE: "HE WAS ALWAYS A CROOK, A LIAR, A DECEIVER, A PLAGIARIST AND A
THIEF."
"You should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity." - HANLON's RAZOR