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

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:58:23 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:26:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:10:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

I'm living at Buenos Aires, almost 650 Km far away from Bahia Blanca.
Damages are mostly in houses. More than 1,000 million USD (estimated)
for reconstruction.
>
Many lives lost, but far less than in Valencia (Spain).
>
Thanks for your wishes.

Mass-velocity relation:
According to this kinetic energy imparts mass. Kinetic energy is energy
that has no mass and imparts on mass. The relation is an unwarranted
inference from experiments.

>
In times of Newton, what existed to define "capability of action" was
what was called "vis viva", which was the modern concept of linear
momentum.
>
Newton's 2nd. Law introduced the concept of force as the "rate of change
of
momentum", which became F = d/dt(mv) = ma.
>
One century later, when the general concept of energy was discussed,
linear kinetic energy was defined as the power embedded into any object
in linear
trajectory due to accumulation of speed of a given mass, starting from
v=0.
>
Then, the modern concept of KE emerged as KE = ∫ (mv) dv [0; v]
>
The factor 1/2 is purely due to adoption of the result of the integral.
No
physical meaning. Only mathematical. In this way, linear momentum, KE
and force
were mathematically connected.
>
>
linear momentum = d/dv(KE) = d/dv(1/2 mv^2)
>
linear force = d/dt [d/dv(KE)] = m dv/dt = m a
>
>
Nothing has changed for 300 years, even with the fucking relativity
except for
the unscrupulous use in particle physics.

The mass-velocity relation requires kinetic energy to add mass because
KE causes the velocity. Why in the world would kinetic energy add mass
when it has none?