Den 04.03.2025 00:58, skrev rhertz:
************************************************************

MY FINAL COMMENT: I'm an electronic engineer with vast practical
experience, in particular in the field of instruments. As an analogy to
my doubt about E=mc^2, I bring this case: How was defined what 1 Ohm
was, around 1900? By consensus, being UK instrumental in such adopted definition. What happened with the instruments that measured resistance
after this consensus about what 1 Ohm? They were calibrated to verify
the new standard. Same with voltmeters and amperometers. Before the
adoption of standards by international consensus, there existed dozens
of different values for the same measurement. After the adoption of the standards, all of them converged to the same value. So, it doesn't
impress me that such values of resistance, voltage and current can be
now "measured" with "extraordinary" precision. Same with the widespread
use of E=mc^2.

It is much correct in what you say.

BUT:
The equation
E = ∝ m
say there is some kind of equivalence between mass and energy,
and that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa.

This can only be empirically tested.
------------------------------------
It is not a claim which can be proven true by circular reasoning.

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles).

In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
mc² = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg⋅m²/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m²

So we have kg⋅m²/s² on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,
then the Equation E = mc² is true by definition!

But c² is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.

It is quite common to use eVolts as unit for both mass and energy.

E = m

But remember, the equivalency is empirically shown to be true.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 04.03.2025 o 14:35, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 04.03.2025 00:58, skrev rhertz:
 ************************************************************

MY FINAL COMMENT: I'm an electronic engineer with vast practical
experience, in particular in the field of instruments. As an analogy to
my doubt about E=mc^2, I bring this case: How was defined what 1 Ohm
was, around 1900? By consensus, being UK instrumental in such adopted
definition. What happened with the instruments that measured resistance
after this consensus about what 1 Ohm? They were calibrated to verify
the new standard. Same with voltmeters and amperometers. Before the
adoption of standards by international consensus, there existed dozens
of different values for the same measurement. After the adoption of the
standards, all of them converged to the same value. So, it doesn't
impress me that such values of resistance, voltage and current can be
now "measured" with "extraordinary" precision. Same with the widespread
use of E=mc^2.

It is much correct in what you say.

BUT:
The equation
  E = ∝ m
say there is some kind of equivalence between mass and energy,
and that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa.

This can only be empirically tested.
------------------------------------
It is not a claim which can be proven true by circular reasoning.

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles).

In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
 mc² = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg⋅m²/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m²

So we have  kg⋅m²/s² on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,
then the Equation E = mc² is true by definition!

But c² is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.

It is quite common to use eVolts as unit for both mass and energy.

E = m

But remember, the equivalency is empirically shown to be true.

While I have nothing against equivalency -
only primitive morons like Paul believe
empirical verification.





--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[AI stupidities]

MY FINAL COMMENT: I'm an electronic engineer with vast practical
experience, in particular in the field of instruments.

So you are incompetent as an 'electronic engineer' as well.

As an analogy to my doubt about E=mc^2, I bring this case: How was defined what 1 Ohm was, around 1900? By consensus, being UK instrumental in such adopted definition.

Of course, all units are always defined by consensus
of the people who use them. How else could it be?
And FYI, the Ohm is not a fundamental unit, it has never been,
and there has never been a primary standard for it,
only secondary ones.
(the SI is a kg, meter second, Amp system, remember?)

What happened with the instruments that measured resistance
after this consensus about what 1 Ohm? They were calibrated to verify
the new standard.

As always. Once a unit is established, people calibrate secondary
standards, and tertiary, until down to the Ohm-meter you buy in a shop.

Same with voltmeters and amperometers.

[sic]
You, a so-called engineer, doesn't even know how to spell the thing.

Before the adoption of standards by international consensus, there existed dozens of different values for the same measurement.

Complete nonsense. There never were dozens of resistance standards.
On the contrary, there existed only one system of electrical units,
the cgs one. (aka Gaussian, or Heaviside-Lorentz, if rationalised)

The 'new' units differed from the old units only in name,
and by some arbitrary (and unfortunate) factors of ten.
(like for example the new, and of course highly practical, Ampere
being 0.1 of the old, and wildly impractical cgs unit, the Abampere)

After the adoption of the standards, all of them converged to the same
value.

More nonsense. There is nothing to converge.
Converging is something that standards don't do, and can't do.
They are what they are, or they are not standards.
Until replaced by a more accurate standard, defined in a different way.

So, it doesn't impress me that such values of resistance, voltage and
current can be now "measured" with "extraordinary" precision.

Of course it not 'impress' you, because you are a complete idiot,
without practical knowledge of engineering and science.

We are living through a 'precision revolution' these days,
with immense practical consequences.
All practical manufacturing nowadays depends
on being able to measure things to "extraordinary" precision.
(like for example the chips for the thing you were posting this with)
Haven't you noticed that all kinds of things tend to get miniaturised?
They can become smaller because we can measure to better accuracy.

Same with the widespread use of E=mc^2.

Widespread use? What you mean is universal use.

You cannot get around it, because E = mc^2 is true
by the very definition of those units you are so proud of.
(CGPM 2018, and not just consensus, unanimously)

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 04.03.2025 o 22:05, J. J. Lodder pisze:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[AI stupidities]

MY FINAL COMMENT: I'm an electronic engineer with vast practical
experience, in particular in the field of instruments.

So you are incompetent as an 'electronic engineer' as well.

As an analogy to my doubt about E=mc^2, I bring this case: How was defined >> what 1 Ohm was, around 1900? By consensus, being UK instrumental in such
adopted definition.

Of course, all units are always defined by consensus
of the people who use them. How else could it be?

As it was with your ISO wannabe second:
some brainwashed morons are announcing
a complete idiocy for ideological
reasons - and then it is pissed at by
all people who measure for real, not for
gedanken.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Dienstag000004, 04.03.2025 um 18:24 schrieb rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

It is much correct in what you say.

BUT:
The equation
   E = ∝ m
say there is some kind of equivalence between mass and energy,
and that mass can be converted to energy and vice versa.

This can only be empirically tested.

<snip>

E = m

But remember, the equivalency is empirically shown to be true.

It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.

Sure, because it doesn't make sense.

The error is, that meant with 'm' is not 'mass', but 'amount of matter'.

Mass is a physical quantity and a measure for resistance to acceleration
and not for 'amount of matter'.

But one quantity cannot morph into another quantity, because that would
be against the rules for physical quantities.

Matter, however, can 'transmute' into a state, for which we have no
mass, but energy.

But the would say:

MATTER (!!!!) can be converted into massless radiation (NOT mass)!!

In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century), thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
(radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.

The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.

'mass' is NOT meant as 'amount of matter'!

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/ til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/

What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper, using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded
this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.

Relativity is MORE A CULT than anything else. It's a pseudoscience that
the Jewish community has been shoving down the throat of gullible, yet intelligent people.

'relativity' is actually a really simple principle, which nobody would
reject.

Another story would be, whether or not Einstein's paper 'On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' makes sense.

I would say:

Einstein's paper is FULL of errors of all kinds and an affrond to any scientific reader.

My guess: It was meant as an insult and was maintained by power in an unscientific realm, because people in the 'community' had to swallow
that piece of garbage, unless they wanted to be expelled from job and
the academic community.

That hateful behaviour, hostile to that 'community', was actually
Einstein's behaviour while in Princton:

he gave (almost) no lectures
his writing desk and his office were a mess
he found nothing
he wore no socks
he had nothing you would call 'haircut'
his wife looked like a male in a dress
he stretched out his tounge, when being photographed

...


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 21:05:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

Of course, all units are always defined by consensus
of the people who use them. How else could it be?
And FYI, the Ohm is not a fundamental unit, it has never been,
and there has never been a primary standard for it,
only secondary ones.
(the SI is a kg, meter second, Amp system, remember?)

<snip>

Imbecile Jan, consensus my ass.

Ass indeed.
You are neither a scientist, nor an engineer.

Real scientists and engineers know that nothing of relevance
can be done without consensus on units and measurements.

Jan

For amusement of others: The good ship VASA, Stockholm harbour,
is a nice example of an effect of lack of consensus in units.
(if is not just NASA that was blundering with units)

Half the ship was built by Swedish shipwrights, who used feet with 12
inches to the foot. The other half by imported Amsterdam shipwrights
who used a different foot with 11 inches to the foot.
Their calibrated rulers have been found.
We know what happened to the ship...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 05.03.2025 o 10:08, J. J. Lodder pisze:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 21:05:37 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

Of course, all units are always defined by consensus
of the people who use them. How else could it be?
And FYI, the Ohm is not a fundamental unit, it has never been,
and there has never been a primary standard for it,
only secondary ones.
(the SI is a kg, meter second, Amp system, remember?)

<snip>

Imbecile Jan, consensus my ass.

Ass indeed.
You are neither a scientist, nor an engineer.

Real scientists and engineers know that nothing of relevance
can be done without consensus on units and measurements.

Engineers know. Scientists deeply believe
that mortal worms have to obey their
idiotic commands.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 05.03.2025 o 10:08, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Real scientists and engineers know that nothing of relevance
can be done without consensus on units and measurements.

For innocent kiddies:
"consensus" in the meaning of some fanatic
trash, like JJ, means "it must be what I
want, and the opposition will be shat on".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 04.03.2025 18:24, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles).

In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
mc² = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg⋅m²/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m²

So we have kg⋅m²/s² on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,

Which is experimentally confirmed.

then the Equation E = mc² is true by definition!

See Jan's post.

But c² is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.

It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.

In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century), thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
(radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.

The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/ til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/

Why are you diverting the attention from the issue
by telling us that the romans believed the mass of
the water disappeared when it was heated?

What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper, using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded
this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.

Of course you can't prove theoretically that mass can
be converted to energy and vice versa.

You can however prove that it follows from
some assumptions.
Einstein's derivation is a thought experiment,
so of course it is circular.
He says: If we assume the postulates of SR and Maxwell's
theory are correct, then it follows that E = ∝ m.

Now we know that his conclusion was correct, even
if his derivation may be questioned.

Because now it is proved experimentally!

When a pion decays, the mass of the pion disappear completely.
The photons are massless 'pure' kinetic energy.

Do you dispute this?

This is what the equation E = mc² expresses.

But yes, the form of the equation is a convention since
the choice of units is a convention.
With different choice of units the equation may be different.

Like E = m

But it expresses the same: energy can be converted to mass
and vice versa.

And that is not a convention, it is a fact.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 05.03.2025 o 15:13, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 04.03.2025 18:24, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles).

In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
 mc² = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg⋅m²/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m²

So we have  kg⋅m²/s² on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,

Which is experimentally confirmed.

Why I have nothing against mass-energy
conversion - only primitive ,orons like
Paul can believe that "confirmation"
or "falsification" bullshit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 06.03.2025 01:00, skrev rhertz:

And fuck Compton too.

Compton is dead, so you better find a living partner.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 05.03.2025 19:11, skrev rhertz:

I question your assertion that E = mc² work both ways (mc² = 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

γ → e⁻ + e⁺

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:13:25 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 04.03.2025 18:24, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles). >>>
In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
mc? = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s
h = 6.62607015e–34 kg?m?/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m?

So we have kg?m?/s? on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,

Which is experimentally confirmed.

then the Equation E = mc? is true by definition!

See Jan's post.

But c? is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.

It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.


In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century), >> thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire >> CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
(radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.

The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into
mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/
til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/

Why are you diverting the attention from the issue
by telling us that the romans believed the mass of
the water disappeared when it was heated?

What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING
CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper, >> using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded
this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.

Of course you can't prove theoretically that mass can
be converted to energy and vice versa.

You can however prove that it follows from
some assumptions.
Einstein's derivation is a thought experiment,
so of course it is circular.
He says: If we assume the postulates of SR and Maxwell's
theory are correct, then it follows that E = ? m.

Now we know that his conclusion was correct, even
if his derivation may be questioned.

Because now it is proved experimentally!

When a pion decays, the mass of the pion disappear completely.
The photons are massless 'pure' kinetic energy.

Do you dispute this?

This is what the equation E = mc? expresses.

But yes, the form of the equation is a convention since
the choice of units is a convention.
With different choice of units the equation may be different.

Like E = m

But it expresses the same: energy can be converted to mass
and vice versa.

And that is not a convention, it is a fact.

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.

And don't come with the crap of particle physics.

Do have a look at a gamma ray cascade,
from an energetic cosmic ray for example.
(already discovered before WWII)

You see energetic gamma rays creating energetic electron-positron pairs,
which produced more gammas, which produce more pairs, and so on,
until you have a particle shower that is easily detected,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 06.03.2025 o 12:01, J. J. Lodder pisze:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:13:25 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 04.03.2025 18:24, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:35:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip>

The famous pion decay into two photons prove that mass can
indeed be converted to energy (kinetic energy of mass-less particles). >>>>>
In SI units the equation in the rest frame of the pion becomes:
mc? = 2 h/f

where m is the mass of the pion in kg, c is the speed of light in m/s >>>>> h = 6.62607015e–34 kg?m?/s, f = the frequency 1/c

SI definition of 1 kg = (h/6.62607015e–34) s/m?

So we have kg?m?/s? on both sides

If it is true that mass can be converted energy,

Which is experimentally confirmed.

then the Equation E = mc? is true by definition!

See Jan's post.

But c? is only a proportionality coefficient necessary
to balance the units in the SI system.

It's a no-brainer to believe in the conversion of mass into energy.


In the last couple of millenniums, or even longer than that, and even
before the CONSENSUS that heat was a kind of energy (early XIX century), >>>> thousands/millions of inquisitive minds wondered HOW COME wood in a fire >>>> CONSUMED to ashes, with most of its volume disappearing, while heat
(radiant, by convection or conduction) was generated. The first
water-based engine/toy was invented about 2,000 years ago.

The heated water disappeared (mass), converting the opposite flows into >>>> mechanical work (energy). Ancient Romans enjoyed this gadget, and I'm
sure that many tried to find a practical use of this effect.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/oqn2f/
til_the_ancient_romans_had_steam_engines_the/

Why are you diverting the attention from the issue
by telling us that the romans believed the mass of
the water disappeared when it was heated?

What I've been questioned here, for years, is that E=mc^2 is A FUCKING >>>> CONVENTION, and that Einstein committed FRAUD in his FUCKING 1905 paper, >>>> using circular reasoning. After a few years, seal physicists applauded >>>> this simple equation (NOT PROVEN ONCE THEORETICALLY), and hyped the
image of Einstein as the genius of geniuses.

Of course you can't prove theoretically that mass can
be converted to energy and vice versa.

You can however prove that it follows from
some assumptions.
Einstein's derivation is a thought experiment,
so of course it is circular.
He says: If we assume the postulates of SR and Maxwell's
theory are correct, then it follows that E = ? m.

Now we know that his conclusion was correct, even
if his derivation may be questioned.

Because now it is proved experimentally!

When a pion decays, the mass of the pion disappear completely.
The photons are massless 'pure' kinetic energy.

Do you dispute this?

This is what the equation E = mc? expresses.

But yes, the form of the equation is a convention since
the choice of units is a convention.
With different choice of units the equation may be different.

Like E = m

But it expresses the same: energy can be converted to mass
and vice versa.

And that is not a convention, it is a fact.

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.

And don't come with the crap of particle physics.

Do have a look at a gamma ray cascade,
from an energetic cosmic ray for example.
(already discovered before WWII)

You see energetic gamma rays creating energetic electron-positron pairs, which produced more gammas, which produce more pairs, and so on,
until you have a particle shower that is easily detected,

And then an idiot can explain you that it shows
e=mc^2. Or that it shows the advantage of communism
over rotten capitalism. No it doesn't.

I don't have anything against E=mc^2, but it's not
any fact, it's some interpretation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Donnerstag000006, 06.03.2025 um 17:18 schrieb rhertz:

I question your assertion that E = mc² work both ways (mc² = 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

γ → 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).

'Growing Earth' is an example and also 'magic dust'.

The inverse (annihilation) is also an observable effect.

The most famous example was '9/11', where about 1 Million tons of
building materials vaporized and vanished without a trace.

As explanation I had developed my own theory called 'structured
spacetime' about which I have written this:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
...


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 07.03.2025 o 10:35, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:

Den 06.03.2025 17:18, skrev rhertz:

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 = mc² work both ways (mc² = 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

γ → e⁻ + e⁺

I asked you not to come with the particle physics shit.

But I did it anyway!

So you better use your lethal argument:

Richard Hertz knows that all the physicists who are working
with the particle physics shit are members of a MAFFIA

While they're just an ordinary bunch of
religious maniacs.



, and

profit from it. This is because he believes the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

According to Richard Hertz:
" Relativity is MORE A CULT than anything else. It's a pseudoscience
  that the Jewish community has been shoving down the throat of
  gullible, yet intelligent people.
  A fucking CULT, promoted by Jewish media and publishing houses.

I've read a lot of his posts and AFAIR I've
never seen "Jewish" there. May be mistaken, but
rather Paul is slandering here, as expected from
relativistic scum.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 06.03.2025 17:18, skrev rhertz:

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 = mc² work both ways (mc² = 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

γ → e⁻ + e⁺

I asked you not to come with the particle physics shit.

But I did it anyway!

So you better use your lethal argument:

Richard Hertz knows that all the physicists who are working
with the particle physics shit are members of a MAFFIA, and
profit from it. This is because he believes the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

According to Richard Hertz:
" Relativity is MORE A CULT than anything else. It's a pseudoscience
that the Jewish community has been shoving down the throat of
gullible, yet intelligent people.
A fucking CULT, promoted by Jewish media and publishing houses.
There were better and much more intelligent people than the fucking
plagiarist."

Particle accelerators like the LHC are designed according to
a fucking CULT so they can obviously not work.

So much for the particle physics shit!

Then, the inverse relationship m=E/c^2 DOESN'T WORK. Purely
FICTIONAL.

So there!

--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Freitag000007, 07.03.2025 um 10:35 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 06.03.2025 17:18, skrev rhertz:

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 = mc² work both ways (mc² = 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

γ → e⁻ + e⁺

I asked you not to come with the particle physics shit.

But I did it anyway!

So you better use your lethal argument:

Richard Hertz knows that all the physicists who are working
with the particle physics shit are members of a MAFFIA, and
profit from it. This is because he believes the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

I would go THAT far.

But 'materialism' is maintained and supported by a huge number of people.

Einstein, for instance, was extremely materialistic, also Marx was.

But the so called 'Great materialistic meta paradigm' is one big fat lie!

It is so well established, that people do not even dare to rethink that
concept and simply believe, what a HUGE propaganda machine has hammered
into their brain.

But that concept is wrong, nevertheless, as we can see - for instance-
in 'pair production', in 'Growing Earth', 'abiogenic oil' (and also in
'9/11').

Because 'pair production' has no obvious political or economic
implications, I would take that as example and try to explain, why
already this violated the 'materialistic paradigm'.

The idea behind materialism is a dichotomy between 'stuff' (aka
'matter') and 'empty space', while the other concept does not
distinguish between space and matter and makes matter 'relative'.

Now creation of a pair of particles is already a case of conversion from
energy to mass, because 'mass' is a scalar quantity and has no direction
and no negative values.

Therefore, both particles have a scalar positive mass, which would add
to a non-zero positive sum of two masses, while the rays from which they
were created had non (only energy).

That's why we have now particles with mass, while rays with energy
disappeared.

The opposite is also possible and the particle and antiparticle could annihilate to some kind of rays.

This says, that matter is not really material stuff, but kind of special
state of rays, hence matter is not 'materialistic', which would violate
the 'great materialistic metaparadigm'.

And that in turn would make a few important concepts of physics obsolete
(and had political and economical implications).

And because it cannot be what should not be, physicist had to swallow
and create nonsense (only).

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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:

That EM-radiation has momentum follows from Maxwell's equations.
The calculation above is done according to Newtonian mechanics.
Note that momentum is conserved, but energy is _not_ conserved.
The kinetic energy before the transfer is zero, after the transfer
it is 2pc. The energy has increased by twice the energy in the
wave-complex, and there is no change in potential energy.
So where does the energy in the wave complex come from?
This shows that there is something seriously wrong with NM.
NM and Maxwell are not compatible.

According to SR will, after the momentum transfer, the mass
of the emitting body be less than the mass of the absorbing
body, and the velocities will also be different.
The total energy will be:
γ(v₁)⋅m₁c² + γ(v₂)⋅m₂c² = 2m₀c² where m₁ > m₀ > m₂
The total momentum:
- γ(v₁)⋅m₁v₁ = -p γ(v₂)⋅m₂v₂ = p where v₁ < v₂, v₁/v₂ ≈ m₂/m₁
-p + p = 0

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 08.03.2025 22:57, skrev rhertz:

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.

And which statement of mine have you proven wrong with this
lethal argument?

By 1900, and for retarded assholes like you and Einstein, inertia and
mass WERE EQUIVALENT!

Indeed.
But Einstein, you and I know that what is conveyed with EM radiation
is not mass, but energy and momentum.

So when Einstein said:
"radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies"
his point is that energy has inertia.
So even if the emitting body is conveying energy and no mass to
the absorbing body, the mass of the emitting body will become less
while the mass of the absorbing body will increase.

Now we know that Einstein was right, E = mc² works both ways.

Pion decay: m → γ + γ energy, momentum and inertia conserved
Pair production: γ → e⁻ + e⁺ energy, momentum and inertia conserved

Remember?

And that came from Newton First Law, 200 years in the past of Einstein's time.

Right.
But Newton was wrong when he believed that mass always is conserved.

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.

But I feel sorry for you, who think you can falsify SR and GR by use of
ad hominem and profanities.

You seem to have a very troubled mind.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)