Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667950 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-29 09:57 +0100 |
| Last post | 2025-12-30 15:44 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-29 09:57 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-29 13:53 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-30 02:16 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 15:29 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-30 10:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-29 10:23 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 15:32 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 10:05 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 13:22 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 17:07 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God jojo <f00@0f0.00f> - 2025-12-31 15:16 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 17:06 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-31 05:15 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 09:48 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-01 06:27 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-01 10:30 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 23:57 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-01 10:34 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 01:04 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 02:12 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 02:27 -0800
Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 16:55 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 09:35 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-03 08:14 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-01-03 08:30 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 11:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-01-03 12:54 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 16:41 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:59 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 22:02 +0100
Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 16:42 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:50 +0100
[OT] Non-ASCII characters (was: Mass--energy equivalence) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 21:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Non-ASCII characters nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-04 01:17 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-08 15:24 +0100
MacSOUP (was: Mass--energy equivalence) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-08 16:03 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 22:28 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-08 14:29 +0000
Re: Mass--energy equivalence athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Mass--energy equivalence nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-08 12:32 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-04 09:19 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-03 08:28 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-01-04 11:59 -0800
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2026-01-03 18:49 +0000
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-02 15:13 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-02 16:35 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-03 22:06 +0100
Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-01-03 22:28 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-04 12:42 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-04 20:20 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-01-04 21:08 +0100
Re: Mass--energy equivalence and the atomic bomb nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-01-05 13:17 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-01-02 10:33 +0100
Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-30 15:44 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 01:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10j721n$1i2q$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667976 |
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>
>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>
> No.
> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
> that mass could be converted to energy as
> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass can
be converted to energy".
Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from Einstein
himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
popular-scientific TV program or film:
<https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero _rest_
energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not (considered)
moving*.
Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905 as a
consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime. Where
the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
[p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the other by
[p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T [2]
where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
(||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
= γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
= γ² m² c²/γ²
= m² c²
leading to the energy--momentum relation
E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
so that for p = 0 (!) we have
E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
[1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
detailed derivation
[2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>
> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
> from the equation E = mc².
_Atomic bomb_
That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested in his
paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
magnitude of c². Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now known
as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the Nazis
were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they were
collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter eventually
led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission bomb
(which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive at the
time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but that
it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not dare to
use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this idea
-- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-destruction
if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he
> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>> Otto Hahn
>> Marie Curie
>> Leo Szillard
>> Edward Teller
>> ...
>
> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were *investors" of
the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
(people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
_investigators_; better: _researchers_.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 02:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0madnWcuuK-IB8r0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #667982 |
On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>
>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>
>> No.
>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>
> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass can
> be converted to energy".
>
> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from Einstein
> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>
> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>
> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero _rest_
> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not (considered)
> moving*.
>
> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>
> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>
> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>
> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905 as a
> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime. Where
> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>
> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>
> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the other by
>
> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T [2]
>
> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>
> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
> = γ² m² c²/γ²
> = m² c²
>
> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>
> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>
> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>
> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>
> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
> detailed derivation
> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>
>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>
>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>> from the equation E = mc².
>
> _Atomic bomb_
>
> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested in his
> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
> magnitude of c². Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now known
> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the Nazis
> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they were
> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>
> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter eventually
> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission bomb
> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive at the
> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but that
> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not dare to
> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this idea
> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-destruction
> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>
>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he
>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>
> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>
>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>> Otto Hahn
>>> Marie Curie
>>> Leo Szillard
>>> Edward Teller
>>> ...
>>
>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>
> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were *investors" of
> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>
There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
_approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
_approximations_ have _error terms_.
Then the usual "non-linear" or "highly non-linear" reflect
where the derivations let out, since they were never "complete"
to begin.
It's similar with Levi-Civita in "the Absolute Differential Calculus",
and for that matter notions like doubling and halving measures,
for example since antiquity and "Zeno's graduation course" vis-a-vis
"von Neumann's computation of the travel-distance of a bee between
two oncoming trains". Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
which is a raw differential itself and since Leibnitz gets involved
notions of the nilpotent and nilsquare about these "neglige-able"
terms, get involved the derivations of both physics, and, mathematics.
Then, for example, Richardson's account of "at least three derivations
or definitions that give the constant c", again gives examples that
for satisfying the Lorentzian as what's used to make for the Hamiltonian
(and Jacobi then Hamilton then Jacobi, again)
and for Lagrange as both "classical" _and_ "potentialistic",
about whether "momentum" is "really" a conserved quantity, or not,
that it _is_ in the kinetic ("linear") yet _not_ in the kinematic
("un-linear"), has that: there's not merely an entire stack of
derivation involved, there are multiplicities of stacks of
derivations involved.
Then, these days the "severe abstraction" of what was the
"mechanical reduction" and later the "electrical reduction",
thusly to accounts like QED and QCD instead of the Bohmian
and nucleonics, for examples, or about all these various
F-Lorentzians, these derivations, if you look and write
the entire stack of the derivation, have implicits like
the truncation of numerical methods or half-accounts like
Hooke's law or about things like Witten's half-plane,
helping establish that one may readily demonstrate that
any given "result" of these derivations may be demonstrated
as non-physical according to particular energies and configurations
of experiment, or, "the data".
So, today's account of E-energy for F-forces/fields, is
a "severe abstraction" and its great and energy is a conserved
quantity, yet like Sedov says it's always of a "form", for
example the kinetic or chemical or nucular (nuclear), that
"pure energy" is only an abstract quantity, then about the
system of dimensioned units and the dimensional analysis,
and more than merely the "dimensionless" analysis.
Or: there's more to Lagrange than Buckingham-Pi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 02:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <xbGcnUD6VuoHAMr0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #667985 |
On 01/02/2026 02:12 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>
>>> No.
>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>>
>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>> can
>> be converted to energy".
>>
>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>> Einstein
>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>
>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>
>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>> _rest_
>> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>> (considered)
>> moving*.
>>
>> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>
>>
>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>
>>
>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>
>>
>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>> as a
>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>> Where
>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>
>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>
>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>> other by
>>
>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T
>> [2]
>>
>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>
>> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
>> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
>> = γ² m² c²/γ²
>> = m² c²
>>
>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>
>> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>>
>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>
>> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>>
>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>> detailed derivation
>> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>>
>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>
>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>> from the equation E = mc².
>>
>> _Atomic bomb_
>>
>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>> in his
>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>> magnitude of c². Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>> known
>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>> Nazis
>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>> were
>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>
>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>> eventually
>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>> bomb
>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>> at the
>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>> that
>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>> dare to
>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>> idea
>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean
>> self-destruction
>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>
>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he
>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>
>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>
>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>> Marie Curie
>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>> Edward Teller
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>
>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>> *investors" of
>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>
>
>
> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>
> Then the usual "non-linear" or "highly non-linear" reflect
> where the derivations let out, since they were never "complete"
> to begin.
>
> It's similar with Levi-Civita in "the Absolute Differential Calculus",
> and for that matter notions like doubling and halving measures,
> for example since antiquity and "Zeno's graduation course" vis-a-vis
> "von Neumann's computation of the travel-distance of a bee between
> two oncoming trains". Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
> which is a raw differential itself and since Leibnitz gets involved
> notions of the nilpotent and nilsquare about these "neglige-able"
> terms, get involved the derivations of both physics, and, mathematics.
>
>
> Then, for example, Richardson's account of "at least three derivations
> or definitions that give the constant c", again gives examples that
> for satisfying the Lorentzian as what's used to make for the Hamiltonian
> (and Jacobi then Hamilton then Jacobi, again)
> and for Lagrange as both "classical" _and_ "potentialistic",
> about whether "momentum" is "really" a conserved quantity, or not,
> that it _is_ in the kinetic ("linear") yet _not_ in the kinematic
> ("un-linear"), has that: there's not merely an entire stack of
> derivation involved, there are multiplicities of stacks of
> derivations involved.
>
>
>
>
> Then, these days the "severe abstraction" of what was the
> "mechanical reduction" and later the "electrical reduction",
> thusly to accounts like QED and QCD instead of the Bohmian
> and nucleonics, for examples, or about all these various
> F-Lorentzians, these derivations, if you look and write
> the entire stack of the derivation, have implicits like
> the truncation of numerical methods or half-accounts like
> Hooke's law or about things like Witten's half-plane,
> helping establish that one may readily demonstrate that
> any given "result" of these derivations may be demonstrated
> as non-physical according to particular energies and configurations
> of experiment, or, "the data".
>
> So, today's account of E-energy for F-forces/fields, is
> a "severe abstraction" and its great and energy is a conserved
> quantity, yet like Sedov says it's always of a "form", for
> example the kinetic or chemical or nucular (nuclear), that
> "pure energy" is only an abstract quantity, then about the
> system of dimensioned units and the dimensional analysis,
> and more than merely the "dimensionless" analysis.
>
>
> Or: there's more to Lagrange than Buckingham-Pi.
>
>
For example, if you study the lettered fields of electromagnetism
since Maxwell, you'll notice that most of those fields are fields
of "potentials" vis-a-vis classical forces, and since Lagrange,
there are two readings: 1) ignore the potential fields, they're
just the balance of the classical forces, and 2) include the
potential fields, since they're the real fields, and most accounts
of the more ignorant sort or "the severe abstraction", follow
1 as a usual linear and inductive inference and have lost 2.
Then, about the theory of potentials itself, these days it's
often and usually defined as "the theory of harmonic functions",
which are simply where the Laplacians are zero, yet, the Lorentzians,
which are Laplacians, have that ds^2 if not zero, is yet a
mathematical infinitesimal, as with regards to Levi-Civita's
note "the indefiniteness of ds^2".
Then, that "the potential fields are the real fields" and for
an account of a "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials", the physics,
where you'll note that "sum-of-histories" is to make for all notions
of the path integral and parallel transport while yet that's merely
_partial_, has that a true potentialistic theory: is more than that.
("Sum-of-potentials.")
So, underneath the surface of the severe abstraction, are multitudinous
stacks of derivations, that, "E=mc^2" only _begins_ to describe.
Einstein's relativity theory, in his words, is an "inertial-system".
So, my dropping all these names is simply enough that I can point
you to what they say, including the more thorough accounts of where
they say at least two different things. Then their usual contributions
to the philosophy of physics and the usual correspondent, coherent,
and pragmatist theories of their interpretation according to the
scientific method, are well-known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 16:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) |
| Message-ID | <10j8pq6$7ehu$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667985 |
Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>>
>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass can
>> be converted to energy".
>>
>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from Einstein
>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>
>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>
>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero _rest_
>> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not (considered)
>> moving*.
>>
>> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>
>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>
>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>
>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905 as a
>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime. Where
>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>
>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>
>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the other by
>>
>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T [2]
>>
>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>
>> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
>> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
>> = γ² m² c²/γ²
>> = m² c²
>>
>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>
>> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>>
>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>
>> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>>
>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>> detailed derivation
>> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>>
>> [...]
>
> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
> equivalency, "E = mc^2",
[*Please* trim your quotations to the relevant minimum.]
No, there *are* NOT; that is, not *anymore*. In modern physics we have done
away with misleading notions of "relativistic mass" vs. "rest mass". There
is only mass, and the "m" in that equation stands for it, while the "E" in
that equation stands for the *rest* energy *only*.
> Einstein's first was after
_before_
> an expression of the kinetic energy
The Newtonian one, yes.
> (not momentum)
You misunderstood what I wrote: Today we use the square of the Minkowski
norm of the *four*-momentum to derive the energy--(3-)momentum relation of
which Einstein's hypothesis is merely a special case.
> as the first term in a Taylor expansion,
Which is why it came _before_ the term that represented the _Newtonian_
kinetic energy.
> and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear").
No, that's nonsense.
> Then, SR has its own derivation,
No, the derivation that I gave is part of special relativity as we
understand it today; it is probably found this way in many
undergraduate-level physics textbooks. Notably, Einstein's derivation which
results in
E = m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + O(v^4)
is insufficient in general as it cannot explain the total energy of objects
with mass m = 0, like photons. The energy--momentum relation can; for
example, for a photon we have
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2
==> E = p c
= (hbar k) c
= (h/(2pi)) (2pi/lambda) c
= (h/lambda) c
= h c/lambda
= h f.
This is explained in detail in the videos that I referenced. You should
watch them. (I kept them quoted here; just scroll up and click the links.)
> [pseudoscientific word salad]
Get well soon.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-02 09:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <VO6cnch2qZ6cn8X0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #667990 |
On 01/02/2026 07:55 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>>>
>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass can
>>> be converted to energy".
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from Einstein
>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>>
>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>>
>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero _rest_
>>> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not (considered)
>>> moving*.
>>>
>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>>
>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>>
>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>
>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905 as a
>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime. Where
>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>>
>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>>
>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the other by
>>>
>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T [2]
>>>
>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>>
>>> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
>>> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
>>> = γ² m² c²/γ²
>>> = m² c²
>>>
>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>>
>>> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>>>
>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>>
>>> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>>>
>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>>> detailed derivation
>>> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
>> equivalency, "E = mc^2",
>
> [*Please* trim your quotations to the relevant minimum.]
>
> No, there *are* NOT; that is, not *anymore*. In modern physics we have done
> away with misleading notions of "relativistic mass" vs. "rest mass". There
> is only mass, and the "m" in that equation stands for it, while the "E" in
> that equation stands for the *rest* energy *only*.
>
>> Einstein's first was after
>
> _before_
>
>> an expression of the kinetic energy
>
> The Newtonian one, yes.
>
>> (not momentum)
>
> You misunderstood what I wrote: Today we use the square of the Minkowski
> norm of the *four*-momentum to derive the energy--(3-)momentum relation of
> which Einstein's hypothesis is merely a special case.
>
>> as the first term in a Taylor expansion,
>
> Which is why it came _before_ the term that represented the _Newtonian_
> kinetic energy.
>
>> and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear").
>
> No, that's nonsense.
>
>> Then, SR has its own derivation,
>
> No, the derivation that I gave is part of special relativity as we
> understand it today; it is probably found this way in many
> undergraduate-level physics textbooks. Notably, Einstein's derivation which
> results in
>
> E = m c^2 + 1/2 m v^2 + O(v^4)
>
> is insufficient in general as it cannot explain the total energy of objects
> with mass m = 0, like photons. The energy--momentum relation can; for
> example, for a photon we have
>
> E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = p^2 c^2
> ==> E = p c
> = (hbar k) c
> = (h/(2pi)) (2pi/lambda) c
> = (h/lambda) c
> = h c/lambda
> = h f.
>
> This is explained in detail in the videos that I referenced. You should
> watch them. (I kept them quoted here; just scroll up and click the links.)
>
>> [pseudoscientific word salad]
>
> Get well soon.
>
> F'up2 sci.physics.relativity
>
Heh.
About Einstein and the centrally symmetric one can definitely
find that sitting right there in "Out of My Later Years" and
that being about the end of it, after the whole scattering of
the "spatial" and "spacial" and a thorough while minimal
deliberation upon the terms.
About then a usual account of "electromagnetic radiation"
vis-a-vis a "light waves" or "light rays", everybody notices
that light has neither charge nor mass and then though these
days the notions of the behavior of light in media since
the experiments of Faraday then Zeeman then again today Faraday,
"polarizing the light", has that not living in a vacuum.
"Living in a vacuum" is an old way to say "invincibly ignorant".
Which is not a defense, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 08:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mrrtgvF9v10U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #667985 |
Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>
>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>
>>> No.
>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>>
>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c²" (which Einstein had
>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>> can
>> be converted to energy".
>>
>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>> Einstein
>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>
>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>
>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>> _rest_
>> energy: E₀ = m c² (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>> (considered)
>> moving*.
>>
>> Fermilab: Why E=mc² is wrong
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>
>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>
>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc²
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>
>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>> as a
>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>> Where
>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>
>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>
>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>> other by
>>
>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/dτ = m d[x]^a/dt dt/dτ = γ m (c, v)^T
>> [2]
>>
>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>
>> (||P||₁,₃)² = η_ab p^a p^b = E²/c² - p² = γ² m (c² - v²)
>> = γ² m² c² (1 - v²/c²)
>> = γ² m² c²/γ²
>> = m² c²
>>
>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>
>> E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²,
>>
>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>
>> E₀ := E(p = 0) = m c².
>>
>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>> detailed derivation
>> [2] ds² = c²dτ² = c²dt² − dx² − dy² − dz² = c²dt²/γ² ⇒ dt/dτ = γ.
>>
>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>
>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>> from the equation E = mc².
>>
>> _Atomic bomb_
>>
>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>> in his
>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>> magnitude of c². Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>> known
>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>> Nazis
>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>> were
>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>
>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>> eventually
>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>> bomb
>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>> at the
>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>> that
>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>> dare to
>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>> idea
>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
>> destruction
>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>
>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc² when he
>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>
>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>
>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>> Marie Curie
>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>> Edward Teller
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>
>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>> *investors" of
>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>
Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
can produce.
I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
nuclear energy.
Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
'first' was my intention.
>
> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
In my opinion the equation E= m*c² is wrong.
The equation came from the mass defect in nuclear decay and should
therefore contain 'deltas' and look like this:
delta(E) = - delta(m) *c²
These 'deltas' are important and were missing in Einstein's equation.
Einstein's materialistic world view suggested a totally wrong
interpretation of the term 'energy' as kind of 'stuff'.
The correct interpretation would be, that matter is 'relative' and
material objects for one observer could be perceived as radiation by
some other.
...
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 08:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Xsa7V-hwhLr4syjh2wrKs0Yr41w@jntp> |
| In reply to | #667997 |
Le 03/01/2026 à 08:07, Thomas Heger a écrit : .. > In my opinion the equation E= m*c² is wrong. LOL. > The equation came from the mass defect in nuclear decay No it didn't. > [snip more nonsens]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rocyfi.16avd19130g9btN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #667997 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> > On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> >>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
> >>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
> >>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
> >>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
> >>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
> >>> that mass could be converted to energy as
> >>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
> >>
> >> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
> >> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
> >> can
> >> be converted to energy".
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
> >> Einstein
> >> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
> >> popular-scientific TV program or film:
> >>
> >> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
> >>
> >> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
> >> _rest_
> >> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
> >> (considered)
> >> moving*.
> >>
> >> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
> >>
> >> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
> >>
> >> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> >> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
> >>
> >> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
> >> as a
> >> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
> >> Where
> >> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
> >>
> >> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
> >>
> >> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
> >> other by
> >>
> >> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
> >> [2]
> >>
> >> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
> >>
> >> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
> >> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
> >> = ?? m? c?/??
> >> = m? c?
> >>
> >> leading to the energy--momentum relation
> >>
> >> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
> >>
> >> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
> >>
> >> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
> >>
> >> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
> >> detailed derivation
> >> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
> >>
> >>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
> >>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
> >>>
> >>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
> >>> from the equation E = mc?.
> >>
> >> _Atomic bomb_
> >>
> >> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
> >> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
> >> in his
> >> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
> >> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
> >> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
> >> known
> >> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
> >> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
> >> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
> >> Nazis
> >> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
> >> were
> >> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
> >>
> >> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
> >> eventually
> >> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
> >> bomb
> >> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
> >> at the
> >> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
> >> that
> >> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
> >> dare to
> >> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
> >> idea
> >> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
> >> destruction
> >> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
> >>
> >>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
> >>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
> >>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
> >>
> >> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
> >> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
> >>
> >>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
> >>>> Otto Hahn
> >>>> Marie Curie
> >>>> Leo Szillard
> >>>> Edward Teller
> >>>> ...
> >>>
> >>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
> >>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
> >>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
> >>
> >> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
> >> *investors" of
> >> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
> >> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
> >> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
> >> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
> >> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
> >>
> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
> can produce.
>
> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>
> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>
> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>
> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
> nuclear energy.
>
> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
> 'first' was my intention.
>
> >
> > There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
> > equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
> > of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
> > expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
> > centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
> > these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
> > another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
> > of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
> > of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
> > there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
> > _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
> > _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>
> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
Your opinions count for nothing.
And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1887367e2f850590$77001$2907604$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #667999 |
On 1/3/2026 11:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> Am Mittwoch000031, 31.12.2025 um 08:57 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>>>>>> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/
>>>>>>> covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Time' magazine suggested, that Einstein actually invented the atomic
>>>>>> bomb (or at least its theoretical foundations).
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> But the atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
>>>>> that mass could be converted to energy as
>>>>> predicted by Einstein's E = mc?.
>>>>
>>>> A common misconception (among laypeople). "E = m c?" (which Einstein had
>>>> not written this way, and not meant this way) does NOT mean that "mass
>>>> can
>>>> be converted to energy".
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, this wrong interpretation may have originated from
>>>> Einstein
>>>> himself when he read that in English from prepared notes for a
>>>> popular-scientific TV program or film:
>>>>
>>>> <https://youtube.com/shorts/ecc8vfpm3C0?si=zTzId-R862UX1P4_>
>>>>
>>>> Instead, it means that objects which have non-zero mass have non-zero
>>>> _rest_
>>>> energy: E? = m c? (notice the subscript) *even if they are not
>>>> (considered)
>>>> moving*.
>>>>
>>>> Fermilab: Why E=mc? is wrong
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=eOCKNH0zaho&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=5>
>>>>
>>>> Science Asylum: What Everyone Gets Wrong About E=mc?
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=HK6IIZ9jqfo&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=6>
>>>>
>>>> PBS SpaceTime: The Real Meaning of E=mc?
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>>> v=Xo232kyTsO0&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>>
>>>> Today (since Dirac, 1928) we understand Einstein's hypothesis of 1905
>>>> as a
>>>> consequence of the energy--momentum relation in Minkowski spacetime.
>>>> Where
>>>> the 4-momentum is given on the one hand through Lagrangian mechanics by
>>>>
>>>> [p]^a = (E/c, p)^T,
>>>>
>>>> where E is the total energy and p is the 3-momentum [1], and on the
>>>> other by
>>>>
>>>> [p]^a = m [u]^a = m d[x]^a/d? = m d[x]^a/dt dt/d? = ? m (c, v)^T
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>> where v is the 3-velocity. Then the square of the Minkowski norm of P is
>>>>
>>>> (||P||?,?)? = ?_ab p^a p^b = E?/c? - p? = ?? m (c? - v?)
>>>> = ?? m? c? (1 - v?/c?)
>>>> = ?? m? c?/??
>>>> = m? c?
>>>>
>>>> leading to the energy--momentum relation
>>>>
>>>> E? = m?c? + p?c?,
>>>>
>>>> so that for p = 0 (!) we have
>>>>
>>>> E? := E(p = 0) = m c?.
>>>>
>>>> [1] see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum#Derivation> for the
>>>> detailed derivation
>>>> [2] ds? = c?d?? = c?dt? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz? = c?dt?/?? ? dt/d? = ?.
>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't see a relation between atomic bombs and Einstein's equation
>>>>>> (which actually wasn't Einstein's invention).
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way the atom bomb could be invented
>>>>> from the equation E = mc?.
>>>>
>>>> _Atomic bomb_
>>>>
>>>> That is not true. The relation of rest energy and mass, which was
>>>> subsequently confirmed using radioactivity, as Einstein had suggested
>>>> in his
>>>> paper, gave a hint that a lot of energy is contained in matter, given the
>>>> magnitude of c?. Szilárds idea of a chain reaction pointed to a way how
>>>> this energy could be released. Einstein's and Szilárd's letter (now
>>>> known
>>>> as the Einstein--Szilárd letter) warned President Roosevelt of the
>>>> possibility that it could be released by an atomic bomb, and that reports
>>>> that Szilárd received from his contacts in Europe suggested that the
>>>> Nazis
>>>> were close to the completion of the development of such a bomb as they
>>>> were
>>>> collecting a lot of fissionable uranium.
>>>>
>>>> Although these reports turned out to be inaccurate, this letter
>>>> eventually
>>>> led to the Manhattan Project and the development of a nuclear fission
>>>> bomb
>>>> (which Einstein regretted later; still his idea -- maybe a bit naive
>>>> at the
>>>> time was not that an atomic bomb would be developed to be *used*, but
>>>> that
>>>> it would be developed *first* by the USA so that the Nazis would not
>>>> dare to
>>>> use the one that they would supposedly develop *later*. To date this
>>>> idea
>>>> -- that the use of nuclear weapons would be ultimately mean self-
>>>> destruction
>>>> if more than one participant had it -- has prevented nuclear war).
>>>>
>>>>> And Alfred Nobel had never heard of E = mc? when he
>>>>> invented dynamite. But the detonation of dynamite
>>>>> is another proof of mass converted to energy.
>>>>
>>>> No, rest energy is not converted to other forms of energy there.
>>>> These explosions are merely *chemical* reactions.
>>>>
>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>
>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>> *investors" of
>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>>>
>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>> can produce.
>>
>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>
>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>
>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>
>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>> nuclear energy.
>>
>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>> 'first' was my intention.
>>
>>>
>>> There are quite various definition of mass/energy (or, mass-energy)
>>> equivalency, "E = mc^2", Einstein's first was after an expression
>>> of the kinetic energy (not momentum) as the first term in a Taylor
>>> expansion, and Einstein's final was as after the account of the
>>> centrally-symmetric ("un-linear"). Then, SR has its own derivation,
>>> these days after the "re-definition" of "SI units as SR units", i.e.
>>> another derivation. The derivation of "momentum" itself as for a story
>>> of momentum, and its definition, since the Mertonian school and latitude
>>> of forms and whether P-R or P/R power and resistance, has that since
>>> there's Hooke's law then Clausius/Arrhenius, there are lots of
>>> _approximations_ hidden in the _derivations_, and there's that
>>> _approximations_ have _error terms_.
>>
>> In my opinion the equation E= m*c? is wrong.
>
> Your opinions count for nothing.
> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
>
> Definitions cannot be wrong,
Really, poor trash?
So, if another idiot defined "shark" as
"a domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick woolly coat and (typically
only in the male) curving horns. It is kept in flocks for its wool or
meat, and is proverbial for its tendency to follow others in the flock."
would you accept it, Loddie?
they are what they are,
>
> Jan
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 16:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10jbdaj$edeg$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667999 |
Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>
>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>> *investors" of
>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>
>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>> can produce.
>>
>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>
>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>
>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>
>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>> nuclear energy.
>>
>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>> 'first' was my intention.
>> [...]
>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong.
>
> Your opinions count for nothing.
[Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader (configuration) or
yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was posted as "?". This is
the 21st century; please use only up-to-date and properly configured
newsreaders.]
True, but it *is* wrong *if* by E *the total energy* is meant.
> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
No, it is NOT; you must not confuse pop-culture with science.
If there is a definition of mass in physics, it is the M and m, e.g. in
F = m a
(Newton's Second Law of Motion),
F(R) = -G M m/r² R/r
(Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation; if you put that together with
previous equation, you arrive at the equivalence of inertial and
gravitational mass; this helped Einstein to formulate general relativity),
m in
E₀ = m c²,
(notice the subscript; *that* is how Einstein meant it from the start),
m = (1/c) √(p_a p^a),
where [p]^a is the four-momentum in Minkowski space¹,
(□ + μ²) Ψ := (□ + m²c²/ℏ²) Ψ = 0
(Klein–Gordon equation²).
Finally, it is also the quantifiable property of elementary particles that
arises by their interaction with the Higgs field. (But we do not understand
yet how they have particularly those masses that we measured.)
See also:
Fermilab: The Origins of Mass
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cg&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=15>
Fermilab: What you never learned about mass
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkHB_WtKRQ&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=16>
> Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
Definitions *can* be wrong if one gives a definition of a term
that is already well-defined.
His definition of "inventor" is wrong. So with the exception of Leo
_Szilárd_ (who, together with Einstein, filed a patent for a refrigerator),
the mentioned scientists were NOT inventors. Granted, that term is used
rather loosely in popular-scientific (con)texts -- but these are
*scientific* newsgroups; we need to be more precise here.
____
¹ This follows from
[p]^a := (E/c, p⃗ )^T = γ m (c, v⃗ )^T,
where γ = 1/sqrt(1 − v⃗ ²/c²), so
p_a p^a = η_ab p^a p^b = γ² m² (c² − v⃗ ²) = m²c²,
where [η]_ab := diag(1, −1, −1, −1) is the matrix form of the
Minkowski metric tensor (using the "mostly minus" sign convention).
² The Klein–Gordon equation of quantum mechanics can (should?)
be understood as the quantization of the energy–momentum relation
E² = m²c⁴ + p⃗ ²c² (1)
whose *special case* — *at relative rest*, p⃗ = 0⃗ — is E₀ = m c²:
From the Schrödinger equation
ⅈℏ ∂ₜΨ = Ê Ψ
= [T̂ + V̂] Ψ = [p̂²/(2m) + V̂] Ψ = [−ℏ²/(2m) ∇² + V] Ψ,
we find that the corresponding quantum-mechanical operators are
Ê = ⅈℏ ∂ₜ,
p̂ = −ⅈℏ ∇,
so if we substitute those in eq. (1) by implying that they act on the same
wavefunction on each side to produce the physical quantities, we have
(ⅈℏ ∂ₜ)² = m²c⁴ + (−ⅈℏ ∇)² c²
<==> −ℏ² ∂ₜ² = m²c⁴ − ℏ²c² ∇²
<==> 1/c² ∂ₜ² = −m²c²/ℏ² + ∇²
<==> 1/c² ∂ₜ² − ∇² + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> η^ab ∂_a ∂_b + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> ∂^a ∂_a + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> (□ + m²c²/ℏ²) Ψ = 0.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rodnvr.1fuyebqcyqx94N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668002 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when > you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set. Top posters will be ignored, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10jbvvn$f3id$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668006 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when >> you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set. > > Top posters will be ignored, Idiot. That was NOT a top-post. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10jc05d$f3id$3@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668006 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when >> you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set. > > Top posters will be ignored, That was NOT a top-post. You need to read more carefully. F'up2 poster -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 16:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God) |
| Message-ID | <10jbddv$edeg$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #667999 |
Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, and set Followup-To when
you crosspost. F'up2 sci.physics.relativity is set.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>> Am Freitag000002, 02.01.2026 um 11:12 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 01/01/2026 04:04 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>> Den 01.01.2026 10:34, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>> Investors of the foundations of atomic bombs were:
>>>>>> Otto Hahn
>>>>>> Marie Curie
>>>>>> Leo Szillard
>>>>>> Edward Teller
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget Lisa Meitner who worked together with Otto Hahn
>>>>> before the war. Otto Hahn got the Nobel price in chemistry 1944,'
>>>>> and many thought that it should be shared with Lisa Meitner.
>>>>
>>>> Read carefully. It is claimed there that those people were
>>>> *investors" of
>>>> the foundations where those people. It is not clear whether this is a
>>>> mistake due to Thomas Heger's poor command of English, or whether this is
>>>> another of his conspiracy theories. But, JFTR, they were NOT *investors*
>>>> (people who invest money into an enterprise or a valuable token), but
>>>> _investigators_; better: _researchers_.
>>
>> Sorry, but that was one of these artefacts, which only auto-correction
>> can produce.
>>
>> I meant, of course, 'inventors'.
>>
>> An inventor is the person, who first had a certain idea for something new.
>>
>> Here the foundation of nuclear energy were meant with 'invention'.
>>
>> 'Researcher' doesn't fit here, because I wanted to express, that those
>> were the very people in history, who developed the foundations of
>> nuclear energy.
>>
>> Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner and certainly several others. But that
>> 'first' was my intention.
>> [...]
>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong.
>
> Your opinions count for nothing.
[Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader (configuration) or
yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was posted as "?". This is
the 21st century; please use only up-to-date and properly configured
newsreaders.]
True, but it *is* wrong *if* by E *the total energy* is meant.
> And FYI, this is the *definition* of mass nowadays.
No, it is NOT; you must not confuse pop-culture with science.
If there is a definition of mass in physics, it is the M and m, e.g. in
F = m a
(Newton's Second Law of Motion),
F(R) = -G M m/r² R/r
(Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation; if you put that together with
previous equation, you arrive at the equivalence of inertial and
gravitational mass; this helped Einstein to formulate general relativity),
m in
E₀ = m c²,
(notice the subscript; *that* is how Einstein meant it from the start),
m = (1/c) √(p_a p^a),
where [p]^a is the four-momentum in Minkowski space¹,
(□ + μ²) Ψ := (□ + m²c²/ℏ²) Ψ = 0
(Klein–Gordon equation²).
Finally, it is also the quantifiable property of elementary particles that
arises by their interaction with the Higgs field. (But we do not understand
yet how they have particularly those masses that we measured.)
See also:
Fermilab: The Origins of Mass
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8grN3zP8cg&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=15>
Fermilab: What you never learned about mass
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkHB_WtKRQ&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=16>
> Definitions cannot be wrong, they are what they are,
Definitions *can* be wrong if one gives a definition of a term
that is already well-defined.
His definition of "inventor" is wrong. So with the exception of Leo
_Szilárd_ (who, together with Einstein, filed a patent for a refrigerator),
the mentioned scientists were NOT inventors. Granted, that term is used
rather loosely in popular-scientific (con)texts -- but these are
*scientific* newsgroups; we need to be more precise here.
____
¹ This follows from
[p]^a := (E/c, p⃗ )^T = γ m (c, v⃗ )^T,
where γ = 1/sqrt(1 − v⃗ ²/c²), so
p_a p^a = η_ab p^a p^b = γ² m² (c² − v⃗ ²) = m²c²,
where [η]_ab := diag(1, −1, −1, −1) is the matrix form of the
Minkowski metric tensor (using the "mostly minus" sign convention).
² The Klein–Gordon equation of quantum mechanics can (should?)
be understood as the quantization of the energy–momentum relation
E² = m²c⁴ + p⃗ ²c² (1)
whose *special case* — *at relative rest*, p⃗ = 0⃗ — is E₀ = m c²:
From the Schrödinger equation
ⅈℏ ∂ₜΨ = Ê Ψ
= [T̂ + V̂] Ψ = [p̂²/(2m) + V̂] Ψ = [−ℏ²/(2m) ∇² + V] Ψ,
we find that the corresponding quantum-mechanical operators are
Ê = ⅈℏ ∂ₜ,
p̂ = −ⅈℏ ∇,
so if we substitute those in eq. (1) by implying that they act on the same
wavefunction on each side to produce the physical quantities, we have
(ⅈℏ ∂ₜ)² = m²c⁴ + (−ⅈℏ ∇)² c²
<==> −ℏ² ∂ₜ² = m²c⁴ − ℏ²c² ∇²
<==> 1/c² ∂ₜ² = −m²c²/ℏ² + ∇²
<==> 1/c² ∂ₜ² − ∇² + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> η^ab ∂_a ∂_b + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> ∂^a ∂_a + m²c²/ℏ² = 0
<==> (□ + m²c²/ℏ²) Ψ = 0.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 20:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1rodo2m.walcho1iacwrqN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668003 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > > > > Your opinions count for nothing. > > [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader (configuration) or > yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was posted as "?". This is > the 21st century; please use only up-to-date and properly configured > newsreaders.] This is just part of TH's (and yours) general incompetence in math and phys. Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. Newsclients have nothing to do with this, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 21:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <10jbveo$f3a2$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668007 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. >>> >>> Your opinions count for nothing. >> >> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader (configuration) or >> yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was posted as "?". This is >> the 21st century; please use only up-to-date and properly configured >> newsreaders.] > > This is just part of TH's (and yours) > general incompetence in math and phys. LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and soon in Physics, too. > Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, > and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > Newsclients have nothing to do with this, Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 21:57 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Non-ASCII characters (was: Mass--energy equivalence) |
| Message-ID | <10jbvqv$f3id$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668009 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > > No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > > Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. With that said, the superscript 2 in question here is already contained in ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) and Windows-1252 (0xB2). There is no excuse for not rendering it correctly. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1#/media/File:Latin-1-infobox.svg> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Non-ASCII characters |
| Message-ID | <1rodtey.1idi61m1xo12x0N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668010 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > > > > No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > > the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > > > > Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > > With that said, the superscript 2 in question here is already contained in > ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) and Windows-1252 (0xB2). There is no excuse for not > rendering it correctly. Au contraire, there can be no excuse for using it on usenet, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-03 23:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <1rodstv.1fz26et1c470niN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #668009 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > >>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. > >>> > >>> Your opinions count for nothing. > >> > >> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader > >> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was > >> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date > >> and properly configured newsreaders.] > > > > This is just part of TH's (and yours) > > general incompetence in math and phys. > > LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and soon in > Physics, too. From long ago no doubt. FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. > > Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, > > and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. > > LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. > > Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. > > No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since > the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. > > Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. Usenet is not from nowadays. > > Newsclients have nothing to do with this, > > Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. Your use of Unicode for math on usenet marks you as an incompetent amateur, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-04 01:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Mass--energy equivalence |
| Message-ID | <10jcbj4$fih1$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #668016 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>>>> In my opinion the equation [E = m*c^2] is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Your opinions count for nothing. >>>> >>>> [Something is wrong with either Thomas Heger's newsreader >>>> (configuration) or yours. Above, the superscript 2 for the square was >>>> posted as "?". This is the 21st century; please use only up-to-date >>>> and properly configured newsreaders.] >>> >>> This is just part of TH's (and yours) >>> general incompetence in math and phys. >> >> LOL. I have a B Sc in Computer Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, and soon in >> Physics, too. > > From long ago no doubt. > FYI, real mathematicians and physicists understand basic TeX. . > (and TeX is fool-proof, not even you could waste it) > Your so-called degrees cannot be serious if you don't know about TeX. I encourage you to search for me on the Web to test your assumptions. >>> Math formulas on usenet should be rendered in ASCII, >>> and nothing but ASCII, using some kind of quasi-TeX. >> LOL. Welcome to the 21st century! > > FYI, Usenet is not from the 21st century. That does not mean that we have to remain in the stone age in order to use it. In fact, it had been decided by the IETF long ago that that should not be so; therefore, by 2009, new standards for Network News had been developed, agreed upon, and already implemented by server and user agent developers to facilitate that. You are simply out of touch, and if the cause of the incompatibility is your newsreader (it *is*), it is not simply out of date and obsolete, but *non-compliant*, i.e. *broken*. (It is well-known in today's Usenet that MacSOUP is broken as it was never updated after 2016, and was buggy even back then.) >>> Any attempt at using non-ASCII symbology is an error. >> >> No, it is not. Network News has been supporting non-ASCII encodings since >> the late 1990s. See also RFC 5536. >> >> Unicode is the standard character set with electronic devices nowadays. > > Usenet is not from nowadays. See above. >>> Newsclients have nothing to do with this, >> >> Wrong. You and your newsreader are hopelessly out of date. > > Your use of Unicode for math on usenet > marks you as an incompetent amateur, No, your ignorance and now (that you have been told) disregard of current network standards marks *you* as one: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536.html#section-2.3> (released in 2009) And your ignoring "Followup-To: poster" indicates that you are trolling. Score adjusted. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web