Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #586574 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-06-07 23:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-28 12:15 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 199 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 23:17 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 00:20 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-08 09:56 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 11:24 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-08 20:12 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 20:23 -0700
Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 20:59 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:01 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 22:57 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 22:57 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-08 18:17 +0300
Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 08:55 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 09:14 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 10:03 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 10:25 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 10:27 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 10:37 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 10:53 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 22:21 -0400
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 20:28 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-08 22:31 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 08:40 -0400
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 07:36 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 10:30 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 11:13 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:37 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 13:02 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-09 16:52 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps eating shit Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 17:08 -0700
Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat his idiocies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 17:17 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat his idiocies Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 17:59 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat his idiocies Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 18:47 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat his idiocies Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 22:25 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz gets to eat his idiocies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 20:25 -0700
Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 21:20 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 22:10 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 06:21 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 09:27 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 09:40 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 09:47 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 09:51 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 10:05 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 10:40 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 11:26 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 18:06 -0700
Cretin Richard Hertz tries (and fails) to move the goalposts once again "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 20:17 -0700
Re: Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 21:17 -0700
Rabid nazi bootlicker Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 22:00 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 09:13 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 10:15 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 11:08 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 14:43 -0700
Nazi bootlicker Richard Hertz at work. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 16:28 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-12 11:23 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 01:34 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 09:06 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-13 17:37 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 11:59 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-14 12:08 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 10:31 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-15 10:34 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 09:19 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-16 12:32 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-15 22:42 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 17:54 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz goes off the deep end "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 19:25 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-16 21:09 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 15:04 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz posts more of his imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 15:55 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz posts more of his imbecilities Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 16:22 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz posts more of his imbecilities Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 18:03 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz posts more of his imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 19:04 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-17 09:37 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 08:52 -0700
Idiot Richard Hertz comes to terms with the fact he's an idiot "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 09:05 -0700
Re: Idiot Richard Hertz comes to terms with the fact he's an idiot Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 10:18 -0700
Re: Idiot Richard Hertz comes to terms with the fact he's an idiot "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 10:26 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-21 11:58 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-12 21:24 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 12:55 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-13 18:37 +0300
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 13:10 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-13 22:51 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 18:23 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 18:26 -0700
Nurse! crank Richard Hertz needs his antipsychotic meds "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 18:56 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-13 22:50 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 14:07 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-14 10:18 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 10:05 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-14 20:44 +0200
Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-19 11:34 -0700
Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 15:39 -0700
Re: Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-19 20:02 -0700
Re: Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 22:41 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz keeps spewing imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 07:03 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps spewing imbecilities Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 07:55 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-21 20:41 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 15:12 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-23 15:13 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 15:58 -0700
Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 21:31 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 22:50 -0700
Re: Odious kapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 06:41 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 06:49 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 09:09 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-24 22:52 +0200
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 14:56 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-25 20:13 +0200
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 11:41 -0700
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-26 21:55 +0200
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-26 13:15 +0000
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-24 23:18 +0000
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-25 19:31 +0200
Re: Odioukapo Richard Hertz makes up porkies Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-25 19:52 +0000
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-24 22:52 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 14:59 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-25 20:38 +0200
Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-25 20:38 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-21 22:36 +0200
Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with the fact that he's a lying imbecile that no one listents to "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with the fact that he's a lying imbecile that no one listents to Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 13:53 -0700
Re: Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with the fact that he's a lying imbecile that no one listents to "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 15:09 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 00:00 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-15 10:56 +0300
Crank Richard Hertz keeps up the entertainment "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 07:17 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-15 11:00 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 09:26 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 12:07 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 18:51 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-26 21:50 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 15:04 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 22:13 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 00:05 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-27 15:34 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 06:50 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-27 15:28 +0000
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 08:54 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-27 22:54 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-27 14:16 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-28 09:26 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-28 13:07 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 11:13 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-28 22:34 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 14:41 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-29 10:04 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 09:27 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-30 00:52 -0400
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 22:30 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-01 19:14 -0400
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 17:17 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-02 12:14 -0400
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-29 15:37 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 09:47 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-29 22:26 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 14:54 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-30 20:26 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-30 12:30 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 12:35 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-01 22:18 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-01 16:45 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-03 14:13 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 23:59 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-04 21:32 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 15:49 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 16:39 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 23:19 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-06 20:46 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 14:03 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 15:11 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-07 22:00 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 17:43 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-08 22:22 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 16:24 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-09 15:00 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 18:14 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-11 23:01 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 17:10 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-12 15:10 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 13:26 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-13 23:10 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 15:28 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-14 10:06 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 12:01 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-07-06 20:46 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-29 12:11 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 11:08 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-29 15:32 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-29 14:32 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-29 20:29 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-30 09:46 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-06-30 19:44 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-07-02 12:13 +0200
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-28 16:33 -0500
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c? approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-28 22:41 -0700
Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principi fallacy. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-28 12:15 +0300
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 21:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <L3rpK.154732$b_.117549@fx09.ams4> |
| In reply to | #586779 |
Den 11.06.2022 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz: > > Paragraph 2: Here, the cretinism PEAKS. Even when accepting that bodies gives mass in the form of light energy, in L/c² CHUNKS. > The fucking liar and deceiver posted that the mass of a body (FIRST TIME he uses MASS word) is composed by an almost infinite > amount of chunks m=L/c². > > So, for any body of mass M, the imbecile stated: M = N x L/c². > > In this case, N: number of times light is turned ON-OFF, until NO MASS is left in the resting body. N easily approaches INFINITY > for any body with mass M (you have to count the mass of the elements of the twin pulses of light, battery, the pulsating mechanism > and the body that holds it all). Lets take a concrete example. Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously taken from the mass of the battery. Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) can be converted to energy? How incredibly stupid!!! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 12:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <0e90e291-c42b-4de6-a305-fbf6130b27d4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586844 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 11.06.2022 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz: > > > > Paragraph 2: Here, the cretinism PEAKS. Even when accepting that bodies gives mass in the form of light energy, in L/c² CHUNKS. > > The fucking liar and deceiver posted that the mass of a body (FIRST TIME he uses MASS word) is composed by an almost infinite > > amount of chunks m=L/c². > > > > So, for any body of mass M, the imbecile stated: M = N x L/c². > > > > In this case, N: number of times light is turned ON-OFF, until NO MASS is left in the resting body. N easily approaches INFINITY > > for any body with mass M (you have to count the mass of the elements of the twin pulses of light, battery, the pulsating mechanism > > and the body that holds it all). > Lets take a concrete example. > Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. > The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously > taken from the mass of the battery. > Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery > is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: > > m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg > > From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that > E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) > can be converted to energy? > > How incredibly stupid!!! > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ You, as always, are wrong. Is Mikko who wrote that thing. But your hate blind you, relativist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 18:37 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <t87lkg$lea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586847 |
On 2022-06-12 19:55:01 +0000, Richard Hertz said: > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 11.06.2022 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz: >>> Paragraph 2: Here, the cretinism PEAKS. Even when accepting that bodies >>> gives mass in the form of light energy, in L/c² CHUNKS. >>> The fucking liar and deceiver posted that the mass of a body (FIRST >>> TIME he uses MASS word) is composed by an almost infinite >>> amount of chunks m=L/c². >>> >>> So, for any body of mass M, the imbecile stated: M = N x L/c². >>> >>> In this case, N: number of times light is turned ON-OFF, until NO MASS >>> is left in the resting body. N easily approaches INFINITY >>> for any body with mass M (you have to count the mass of the elements of >>> the twin pulses of light, battery, the pulsating mechanism >>> and the body that holds it all). >> >> Lets take a concrete example. >> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. >> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously >> taken from the mass of the battery. >> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery >> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: >> >> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg >> >> From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that >> E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) >> can be converted to energy? >> >> How incredibly stupid!!! >> >> -- >> Paul > You, as always, are wrong. > > Is Mikko who wrote that thing. But your hate blind you, relativist. Wrong. It was Richard Hertz who wrote >>> In this case, N: number of times light is turned ON-OFF, until NO MASS >>> is left in the resting body. Nothing above is by me nor in response to anything by me. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 13:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <33809f4f-7c0e-4a46-aac7-434116616392n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586844 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: <snip> > Lets take a concrete example. > Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. > The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously > taken from the mass of the battery. > Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery > is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: > > m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg <snip> SHAME ON YOU, PAUL. You FAILED, one more time, in your calculations! I didn't see ANY exponential decay in your analysis of the depletion of the energy storage. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. That's why you are a relativist. You can't do math in the proper way, and, like Einstein, you are prone to fail all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 22:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <_qNpK.111525$Q381.98543@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #586852 |
Den 12.06.2022 22:10, skrev Richard Hertz: > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > <snip> > >> Lets take a concrete example. >> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. >> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously >> taken from the mass of the battery. >> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery >> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: >> >> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg > > <snip> > > SHAME ON YOU, PAUL. > > You FAILED, one more time, in your calculations! > > I didn't see ANY exponential decay in your analysis of the depletion of the energy storage. SIC !!!!!! :-D > > SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. > > That's why you are a relativist. You can't do math in the proper way, and, like Einstein, you are prone to fail all the time. > Hilarious, no? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 18:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <1e9d951f-edb9-456e-91eb-2f65b06f1ca3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586844 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: <snip> > Lets take a concrete example. > Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. > The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously > taken from the mass of the battery. > Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery > is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: > > m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg > > From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that > E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) > can be converted to energy? > > How incredibly stupid!!! What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN between ENERGY and POWER! It's a shame, Paul, reading your example makes me doubt about your knowledge. I'll modify your proposal a little. Take two 550 nm laser diodes and wire them exactly back to back. Assume that they are 120 mW capable laboratory lasers. Arrange in cascade two 1.5 V batteries (1200 mAh), to provide 3 V DC to each diode. The current that feed them will be 80 mA. No thermal losses or any other kind of losses exist. Energy conversion is 100% efficient. Assume that current is provided at a constant value until battery depletion, after which it ceases. It gives you 5 hours for the experiment. Now, reproduce Einstein's thought experiment in a more realistic way. Twin lasers are eating energy from the 3 V DC battery at a rate of 240 mW (mJoules/second). Assume that you're measuring the assembly from an inertial platform that moves at 100 Km/sec (v << c). Knowing that the energy reservoir IS NOT INFINITE, can you reproduce Einstein's thought experiment and CONCLUDE that "The KINETIC ENERGY OF THE BODY with respect to (ξ, η, ζ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body."? Also, can you assert that "a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."? And that "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."? Really, you can DEDUCE IT realistically? Assume, favoring Einstein assertions, that the masses of the assembly ARE 0 Kg. It only rests to calculate the MASS of the chemical energy that was converted into light (chemistry). Can you do that? Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 18:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <c975c345-9b78-4fbf-92b0-e03f696f098dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586867 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 10:23:22 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > <snip> > > Lets take a concrete example. > > Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. > > The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously > > taken from the mass of the battery. > > Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery > > is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: > > > > m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg > > > > From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that > > E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) > > can be converted to energy? > > > > How incredibly stupid!!! > What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN > between ENERGY and POWER! > > It's a shame, Paul, reading your example makes me doubt about your knowledge. > > I'll modify your proposal a little. > > Take two 550 nm laser diodes and wire them exactly back to back. Assume that they are 120 mW capable laboratory lasers. > Arrange in cascade two 1.5 V batteries (1200 mAh), to provide 3 V DC to each diode. The current that feed them will be 80 mA. > No thermal losses or any other kind of losses exist. Energy conversion is 100% efficient. > > Assume that current is provided at a constant value until battery depletion, after which it ceases. It gives you 5 hours for the > experiment. > > Now, reproduce Einstein's thought experiment in a more realistic way. Twin lasers are eating energy from the 3 V DC battery at > a rate of 240 mW (mJoules/second). > > Assume that you're measuring the assembly from an inertial platform that moves at 100 Km/sec (v << c). > > Knowing that the energy reservoir IS NOT INFINITE, can you reproduce Einstein's thought experiment and CONCLUDE that "The KINETIC > ENERGY OF THE BODY with respect to (ξ, η, ζ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent > of the properties of the body."? > > Also, can you assert that "a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."? > > And that "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."? > > Really, you can DEDUCE IT realistically? Assume, favoring Einstein assertions, that the masses of the assembly ARE 0 Kg. > It only rests to calculate the MASS of the chemical energy that was converted into light (chemistry). > > Can you do that? > > Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided > by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the > chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier). I forgot. I provided details, so you can calculate the total number of photons that carried mass away, in the experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 18:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Nurse! crank Richard Hertz needs his antipsychotic meds |
| Message-ID | <4776b2e5-181c-4623-94d1-30d34e90fe6dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586867 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 6:23:22 PM UTC-7, lunatic asylum inpatient Richard Hertz wrote: > Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided > by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the > chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier). Patient Dick Hertz, Uranium salts do exactly that. It was known since 1896. Take your meds and go to bed, you have entertained us enough for the day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 22:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <tqNpK.111518$Q381.24198@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #586867 |
Den 13.06.2022 03:23, skrev Richard Hertz: > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > <snip> > >> Lets take a concrete example. >> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. >> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously >> taken from the mass of the battery. >> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery >> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: >> >> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg >> >> From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that >> E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) >> can be converted to energy? >> >> How incredibly stupid!!! > > What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN > between ENERGY and POWER! I note with interest that Richard Hertz doesn't know how to calculate the electric energy content in a battery. It is so elementary that I won't bother to tell him. > > It's a shame, Paul, reading your example makes me doubt about your knowledge. > > I'll modify your proposal a little. Why do you think that changing the capacity and voltage of the battery in your torch will make a difference? > > Take two 550 nm laser diodes and wire them exactly back to back. Assume that they are 120 mW capable laboratory lasers. > Arrange in cascade two 1.5 V batteries (1200 mAh), to provide 3 V DC to each diode. The current that feed them will be 80 mA. > No thermal losses or any other kind of losses exist. Energy conversion is 100% efficient. The energy content will be 12960 J, and the mass loss when the battery is empty is 1.44e-13 kg. > > Assume that current is provided at a constant value until battery depletion, after which it ceases. It gives you 5 hours for the > experiment. > > Now, reproduce Einstein's thought experiment in a more realistic way. Twin lasers are eating energy from the 3 V DC battery at > a rate of 240 mW (mJoules/second). > > Assume that you're measuring the assembly from an inertial platform that moves at 100 Km/sec (v << c). > > Knowing that the energy reservoir IS NOT INFINITE, can you reproduce Einstein's thought experiment and CONCLUDE that "The KINETIC > ENERGY OF THE BODY with respect to (ξ, η, ζ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent > of the properties of the body."? When the battery is full, the mass of the body is M. When the battery is empty, the mass of the body is (M-m) where m = 1.44e-13 kg. The kinetic energy of the body in a frame where the body is moving with the speed v is, as a result of the emission of light, diminished from M⋅v²/2 to (M−m)⋅v²/2 (v << c). So it is diminished by (12960J)⋅(v²/c²)/2. (independent of M) > > Also, can you assert that "a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."? I can assert that this follows from the postulates of SR, and is solidly confirmed by experimental evidence. > > And that "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."? > > Really, you can DEDUCE IT realistically? Assume, favoring Einstein assertions, that the masses of the assembly ARE 0 Kg. M = 0??? How stupid. > It only rests to calculate the MASS of the chemical energy that was converted into light (chemistry). > > Can you do that? Sure. m = 1.44e-13 kg > > Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided > by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the > chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier). > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 14:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <1a7019ef-7e54-4b88-80c9-a283afeda144n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586911 |
On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 5:50:36 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 13.06.2022 03:23, skrev Richard Hertz: > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> Lets take a concrete example. > >> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. > >> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously > >> taken from the mass of the battery. > >> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery > >> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: > >> > >> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg > >> > >> From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that > >> E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) > >> can be converted to energy? > >> > >> How incredibly stupid!!! > > > > What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN > > between ENERGY and POWER! > I note with interest that Richard Hertz doesn't know how > to calculate the electric energy content in a battery. > > It is so elementary that I won't bother to tell him. > > > > It's a shame, Paul, reading your example makes me doubt about your knowledge. > > > > I'll modify your proposal a little. > Why do you think that changing the capacity and voltage > of the battery in your torch will make a difference? > > > > Take two 550 nm laser diodes and wire them exactly back to back. Assume that they are 120 mW capable laboratory lasers. > > Arrange in cascade two 1.5 V batteries (1200 mAh), to provide 3 V DC to each diode. The current that feed them will be 80 mA. > > No thermal losses or any other kind of losses exist. Energy conversion is 100% efficient. > The energy content will be 12960 J, and the mass > loss when the battery is empty is 1.44e-13 kg. > > > > Assume that current is provided at a constant value until battery depletion, after which it ceases. It gives you 5 hours for the > > experiment. > > > > Now, reproduce Einstein's thought experiment in a more realistic way. Twin lasers are eating energy from the 3 V DC battery at > > a rate of 240 mW (mJoules/second). > > > > Assume that you're measuring the assembly from an inertial platform that moves at 100 Km/sec (v << c). > > > > Knowing that the energy reservoir IS NOT INFINITE, can you reproduce Einstein's thought experiment and CONCLUDE that "The KINETIC > > ENERGY OF THE BODY with respect to (ξ, η, ζ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent > > of the properties of the body."? > When the battery is full, the mass of the body is M. > When the battery is empty, the mass of the body is (M-m) > where m = 1.44e-13 kg. > > The kinetic energy of the body in a frame where the body > is moving with the speed v is, as a result of the emission > of light, diminished from M⋅v²/2 to (M−m)⋅v²/2 (v << c). > So it is diminished by (12960J)⋅(v²/c²)/2. (independent of M) > > > > Also, can you assert that "a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."? > I can assert that this follows from the postulates of SR, and is solidly > confirmed by experimental evidence. > > > > And that "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."? > > > > Really, you can DEDUCE IT realistically? Assume, favoring Einstein assertions, that the masses of the assembly ARE 0 Kg. > M = 0??? How stupid. > > It only rests to calculate the MASS of the chemical energy that was converted into light (chemistry). > > > > Can you do that? > Sure. m = 1.44e-13 kg > > > > Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided > > by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the > > chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier). > > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Now apply that to explain the 200 MeV generated by the conversion of mass into energy, when one U-235 atom is fissioned. Good luck translating the inertial motion, the frames of reference and all the shit of YOUR BELOVED 1905 paper, genius. And, I'll not reply your comments from above, astronomer wannabe. I'm an EE who made a living dealing with energy and power. And you? Which is your practical experience on this matter? Analyzing Alpha Centauri? BETTER reply to my post, which is exactly above your last one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 10:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <fvXpK.59418$W169.20167@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #586914 |
Den 13.06.2022 23:07, skrev Richard Hertz: > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 5:50:36 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 13.06.2022 03:23, skrev Richard Hertz: >>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Lets take a concrete example. >>>> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. >>>> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously >>>> taken from the mass of the battery. >>>> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery >>>> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: >>>> >>>> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg >>>> >>>> From whence did you get idiotic idea that Einstein claimed that >>>> E = mc² implies that all the mass of the body (torch in hour case) >>>> can be converted to energy? >>>> >>>> How incredibly stupid!!! >>> >>> What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN >>> between ENERGY and POWER! >> I note with interest that Richard Hertz doesn't know how >> to calculate the electric energy content in a battery. >> >> It is so elementary that I won't bother to tell him. >>> >>> It's a shame, Paul, reading your example makes me doubt about your knowledge. >>> >>> I'll modify your proposal a little. >> Why do you think that changing the capacity and voltage >> of the battery in your torch will make a difference? >>> >>> Take two 550 nm laser diodes and wire them exactly back to back. Assume that they are 120 mW capable laboratory lasers. >>> Arrange in cascade two 1.5 V batteries (1200 mAh), to provide 3 V DC to each diode. The current that feed them will be 80 mA. >>> No thermal losses or any other kind of losses exist. Energy conversion is 100% efficient. >> The energy content will be 12960 J, and the mass >> loss when the battery is empty is 1.44e-13 kg. >>> >>> Assume that current is provided at a constant value until battery depletion, after which it ceases. It gives you 5 hours for the >>> experiment. >>> >>> Now, reproduce Einstein's thought experiment in a more realistic way. Twin lasers are eating energy from the 3 V DC battery at >>> a rate of 240 mW (mJoules/second). >>> >>> Assume that you're measuring the assembly from an inertial platform that moves at 100 Km/sec (v << c). >>> >>> Knowing that the energy reservoir IS NOT INFINITE, can you reproduce Einstein's thought experiment and CONCLUDE that "The KINETIC >>> ENERGY OF THE BODY with respect to (ξ, η, ζ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent >>> of the properties of the body."? >> When the battery is full, the mass of the body is M. >> When the battery is empty, the mass of the body is (M-m) >> where m = 1.44e-13 kg. >> >> The kinetic energy of the body in a frame where the body >> is moving with the speed v is, as a result of the emission >> of light, diminished from M⋅v²/2 to (M−m)⋅v²/2 (v << c). >> So it is diminished by (12960J)⋅(v²/c²)/2. (independent of M) >>> >>> Also, can you assert that "a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²."? >> I can assert that this follows from the postulates of SR, and is solidly >> confirmed by experimental evidence. >>> >>> And that "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."? >>> >>> Really, you can DEDUCE IT realistically? Assume, favoring Einstein assertions, that the masses of the assembly ARE 0 Kg. >> M = 0??? How stupid. >>> It only rests to calculate the MASS of the chemical energy that was converted into light (chemistry). >>> >>> Can you do that? >> Sure. m = 1.44e-13 kg >>> >>> Or do you prefer to use A MAGICAL BODY, which spontaneously generates opposite twins of laser beams, with a material provided >>> by AN ALIEN CIVILIZATION to the cretin in 1905? Like the magic massless assembly that I described (except for the mass of the >>> chemical reservoir. Make it a nuclear energy reservoir, if it makes you happier). >>> >> -- >> Paul >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > > I'll not reply your comments from above, astronomer wannabe. I'm an EE who made a living dealing with energy and power. OK. Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 10:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <d38bc510-872c-4379-8fca-d8cc606c0105n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586930 |
On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 5:18:22 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 13.06.2022 23:07, skrev Richard Hertz: <snip> > > I'll not reply your comments from above, astronomer wannabe. I'm an EE who made a living dealing with energy and power. > OK. > Case closed. > > -- > Paul I meant that I'm not replying to your comments about you trolling me on my knowledge of energy and power. You can close the case, if it makes you feel better. I don't give a rat ass about your closure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 20:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <%F4qK.200983$3%%8.114639@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #586942 |
Den 14.06.2022 19:05, skrev Richard Hertz: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 5:18:22 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 13.06.2022 23:07, skrev Richard Hertz: >>> I'll not reply your comments from above, astronomer wannabe. I'm an EE who made a living dealing with energy and power. >> OK. >> Case closed. >> > > I meant that I'm not replying to your comments about you trolling me on my knowledge of energy and power. Quite. Your knowledge of energy and power is illustrated in your response quoted below: |Den 13.06.2022 03:23, skrev Richard Hertz:|> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:24:32 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: |>> Lets take a concrete example. |>> Let the body be a torch with a 9V 500 mAh battery. E = 16200 J. |>> The mass that is converted to radiation (light+heat) is obviously |>> taken from the mass of the battery. |>> Whether you are pulsing the light or leave it on till the battery |>> is flat, the mass of the battery (and torch) is reduced by: |>> |>> m = E/c² = 1.8e-13 kg |>>|> |> What is incredibly stupid for a person like you is that, after years wasted in education, you CAN'T DISCERN |> between ENERGY and POWER! > You can close the case. Done! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-18 13:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <62AE311D.AEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586867 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > between ENERGY and POWER! Define Energy. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 11:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <62AF6C3F.63C8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #587176 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > between ENERGY and POWER! > > Define Energy. What I mean is...What is Energy? Can you tell me what is energy? (i promise i won't ask you about what is power.) You see, I have this problem... I don't know what energy is. Can you tell me what is energy? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 15:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <2ab9f99a-539d-4e0b-82e4-542a662b379an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587210 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 3:34:36 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: <snip> > Can you tell me what is energy? (i promise i won't ask you about what is power.) > > You see, I have this problem... I don't know what energy is. > > Can you tell me what is energy? In science, energy is the capacity to do work with matter, and come in different flavors: Energy variations: Gravitational, thermal (heat), mechanical, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic, chemical, sound, atomic, nuclear, etc. It's ALLEGED that, in a closed system, energy is conserved. So, while it can change from one form to another, the total energy is constant. The measurement of the work exerted during time is done by the work done in a period of time. Work, in the most elementary conception, is the ability to move matter in space. There are many examples of work, like in mechanics. The 19th. Century was the century of the ENERGY, starting with definition of HEAT as energy, and ended with the definition of quanta of energy (Planck-1900, Lenard -1903). Both were awarded with Nobel Prizes (first Lenard, then Planck). In the first decades of the 20th. Century, energy was more clearly defined in chemistry and, later, in nuclear physics. The CRETIN contributed in NOTHING to the real physics, as he stole Poincaré-1900 FORMULAE for the conversion of the energy of a "cannon and its shots of light", which Poincaré conceived as transformed into KE (the recoil of such thought cannon). Hasenhorl (1904-1905) demonstrated (as approximation for v << c) the conversion of INERTIAL MOTION into MASS for the EM radiation PRESSURE exerted on the ends of a closed black body cavity that moved inertially. The CRETIN stole this mathematically proven theory. Happy? You can add more types of energy, if you want. Like the one that existed on the FUCKING DOT before it exploded and created the Universe, as some atheists still propose. You can also include the energy that FEEDS THE MATRIX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 20:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <62AFE34A.60C4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #587249 |
You left out flavors vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. ... What flavor is E in E=Mc2? Richard Hertz wrote: > > In science, energy is the capacity to do work with matter, and come in different flavors: > > Energy variations: Gravitational, thermal (heat), mechanical, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic, chemical, sound, atomic, nuclear, etc. > > It's ALLEGED that, in a closed system, energy is conserved. So, while it can change from one form to another, the total energy is constant. > > The measurement of the work exerted during time is done by the work done in a period of time. > > Work, in the most elementary conception, is the ability to move matter in space. There are many examples of work, like in mechanics. > > The 19th. Century was the century of the ENERGY, starting with definition of HEAT as energy, and ended with the definition of quanta of energy (Planck-1900, Lenard -1903). Both were awarded with Nobel Prizes (first Lenard, then Planck). > > In the first decades of the 20th. Century, energy was more clearly defined in chemistry and, later, in nuclear physics. > > The CRETIN contributed in NOTHING to the real physics, as he stole Poincaré-1900 FORMULAE for the conversion of the energy of > a "cannon and its shots of light", which Poincaré conceived as transformed into KE (the recoil of such thought cannon). > > Hasenhorl (1904-1905) demonstrated (as approximation for v << c) the conversion of INERTIAL MOTION into MASS for the EM radiation > PRESSURE exerted on the ends of a closed black body cavity that moved inertially. The CRETIN stole this mathematically proven theory. > > Happy? > > You can add more types of energy, if you want. Like the one that existed on the FUCKING DOT before it exploded and created > the Universe, as some atheists still propose. > > You can also include the energy that FEEDS THE MATRIX. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-19 22:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: The 1905 paper about m=E/c² approximation is FALSE. Petitio principii fallacy. |
| Message-ID | <521991d3-05a5-4b85-829d-5cdd666de64an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587257 |
On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:02:27 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: <snip> > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > In science, energy is the capacity to do work with matter, and come in different flavors: > > > > Energy variations: Gravitational, thermal (heat), mechanical, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic, chemical, sound, atomic, nuclear, etc. > > > > It's ALLEGED that, in a closed system, energy is conserved. So, while it can change from one form to another, the total energy is constant. > > > > The measurement of the work exerted during time is done by the work done in a period of time. > > > > Work, in the most elementary conception, is the ability to move matter in space. There are many examples of work, like in mechanics. > > > > The 19th. Century was the century of the ENERGY, starting with definition of HEAT as energy, and ended with the definition of quanta of energy (Planck-1900, Lenard -1903). Both were awarded with Nobel Prizes (first Lenard, then Planck). > > > > In the first decades of the 20th. Century, energy was more clearly defined in chemistry and, later, in nuclear physics. > > > > The CRETIN contributed in NOTHING to the real physics, as he stole Poincaré-1900 FORMULAE for the conversion of the energy of > > a "cannon and its shots of light", which Poincaré conceived as transformed into KE (the recoil of such thought cannon). > > > > Hasenhorl (1904-1905) demonstrated (as approximation for v << c) the conversion of INERTIAL MOTION into MASS for the EM radiation > > PRESSURE exerted on the ends of a closed black body cavity that moved inertially. The CRETIN stole this mathematically proven theory. > You left out flavors vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. ... > > > > What flavor is E in E=Mc2? Quite simple: SHIT FLAVOR. As I stated constantly, the fucking formula E = mc² is FALSE, USELESS AND IMPOSED AS A NORMALIZING BRIDGE between physics and chemistry. Only a FUCKING RETARDED, A GENETIC DISGRACE like Einstein could propose that MATTER IS ENERGY, and conversely. And, since 1911, the homocommunity bought and propagated the IDEA that matter is COMPLETELY REDUCIBLE to energy. Only cretin degenerates, supported by the zionist mafia in Europe and USA, imposed the idea of REST ENERGY, eliminating the usual measurement of mass (cgs, MKS, gauss,..), supporting the use of eV/c² to express mass with ZERO SPEED respect to the observer. In this DISGUSTING WAY, the degeneracy of thought spread to the entire Western science. But it's FALSE, MEANINGLESS. And the only single purpose is to KEEP RELATIVITY ALIVE FOREVER. For instance: Electron rest mass: 0.511 MeV/c² = 8.187E-14 Joules/c² = 9.1096E-31 Kg ::= 0.000548 Daltons or u (for chemistry). Dalton or unified atomic mass unit (symbols: Da or u) So, m₀ = E₀/c² OR (making easier with c =1), m₀ = E₀ for you (rest mass = energy. NO MORE MASS FOR YOU. Einstein FOREVER). And so it is with every fucking particle in the SMEP (Standard Model of Elementary Particles). Check it out here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_Anti.svg Or, for ONE ATOM of U-235: Mass: 235.044 Daltons (u) OR 3.91E-26 Kg OR 21,917,42 MeV/c² OR 3,512E-09 Joules/c² Excess energy 40.91 MeV Binding energy 17,838 MeV See the FUCKING TRICK? Mass of U-235 = Binding Energy (irreducible rest mass) + Excess Energy (differences between physics and chemistry). But it doesn't explain A-bombs, because THEY INVENTED WHAT FOLLOWS: YET, the alleged fission of ONE ATOM of U-235 liberates about 200 MeV (written in stone by Lisa Meitzer and nephew in 1939), which is ASSIGNED BY RELATIVISTS to E=mc2. It doesn't matter that 80% is KE, that the origin is due to Coulomb's electrostatic repulsion and that a WIDEBAND SPECTRUM of EM energy (unknown mix) is "ALLEGEDLY" liberated simultaneously. Einstein did it, claim chosenites. Here, buy one cover QUICKLY. They run out of it every time they print 100,000 to sell to retarded. Albert Einstein July 1, 1946 Time Magazine Professionally Matted Cover https://www.amazon.com/-/es/dp/B00GP3DLZM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 07:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz keeps spewing imbecilities |
| Message-ID | <5d81ec02-8d86-4b8a-a4cf-ee6ab1dab454n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587261 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz came to grips with reality: > Only a FUCKING RETARDED, A GENETIC DISGRACE like Richard Hertz is spewing such imbecilities Yep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-20 07:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps spewing imbecilities |
| Message-ID | <7b2f047c-8186-4acc-8628-2f2331af383en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #587283 |
On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 16:03:22 UTC+2, Dono. wrote: > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz came to grips with reality: > > > Only a FUCKING RETARDED, A GENETIC DISGRACE like Richard Hertz is spewing such imbecilities > > Yep No. RH didn't write it; poor stinker Dono is impudently lying, as expected from relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web