Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #894837 > unrolled thread

Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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.

Contents

  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 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-30 10:50 +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 09:06 -0800
                Re: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2025-12-31 11:18 -0600
          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 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: 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 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 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#894862

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]

#894864

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]

#894865

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]

#894866 — Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God)

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]

#894867 — Re: Mass--energy equivalence

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]

#894871

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]

#894872

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]

#894873

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]

#894874

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]

#894875

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]

#894880

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]

#894876 — Mass--energy equivalence (was: Fwd: Einstein's God (a cosmic religion) is called Spinoza's God)

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]

#894877

On 01/03/2026 02:30 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, they are what they are,
>
> Jan
>

Oh, "axioms" can be "false".

For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.

Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894879

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/2026 02:30 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, they are what they are,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> 
> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
> 
> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
> 
> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.

Gobbledygook,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894884

On 01/03/2026 11:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2026 02:30 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, they are what they are,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
>>
>> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
>>
>> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
>> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
>
> Gobbledygook,
>
> Jan
>

Well, haul out your thesaurus,
I think one can find "axiom" and "stipulation".

"Principles", "laws", ..., about things like
the principle of sufficient reason after the
principle of (non) contradiction, here instead
there's a principle of inverse instead of contradiction,
and a principle of sufficient, _and thorough_, reason.


"Gobbledygook" you say - just more of the rubber and glue bit.

It may remind of Zermelo's account of the well-ordering
principle, a usual axiom, well-ordering, choice, Zorn's
or Ono's lemmas (as they're so arrived at), then about
for example a well-dispersion the illative or univalent,
Martin's axiom. Along with well-foundedness this makes
three different sorts of rulialities/regularities, for
usual theories-of-one-relation like set theory. So, ...,
it can be arrived at the "un-intuitive" (plainly, contradictory)
results of those existing together. This then is a bit more
involved the existence of usual counter-inductive argument
to any sort of interesting inductive argument intending to
entail some completion, since these apiece constructively
make different ones.

Don't forget Goedel's incompleteness and Erdos' independence.

See, when you put them together, their "definitions",
if they disagree, then they model each other as examples
of fallacy, "false axioms".

Instead of just any random statement at all like as
after the quasi-modal non-monotonic non-entailment
"material implication" (neither material nor implication),
"ex falso quodlibet", instead it's "ex falso nihilum"
and a wider, fuller dialectic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894891

On 01/03/2026 11:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2026 02:30 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, they are what they are,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> Oh, "axioms" can be "false".
>>
>> For any inductive argument there's a counter-inductive argument.
>>
>> Thus, absent a wider, fuller dialectic, what you say applies
>> uncritically, or, you know, the "rubber and glue" bit.
>
> Gobbledygook,
>
> Jan
>


Well, haul out your thesaurus,
I think one can find "axiom" and "stipulation".

"Principles", "laws", ..., about things like
the principle of sufficient reason after the
principle of (non) contradiction, here instead
there's a principle of inverse instead of contradiction,
and a principle of sufficient, _and thorough_, reason.


"Gobbledygook" you say - just more of the rubber and glue bit.

It may remind of Zermelo's account of the well-ordering
principle, a usual axiom, well-ordering, choice, Zorn's
or Ono's lemmas (as they're so arrived at), then about
for example a well-dispersion the illative or univalent,
Martin's axiom. Along with well-foundedness this makes
three different sorts of rulialities/regularities, for
usual theories-of-one-relation like set theory. So, ...,
it can be arrived at the "un-intuitive" (plainly, contradictory)
results of those existing together. This then is a bit more
involved the existence of usual counter-inductive argument
to any sort of interesting inductive argument intending to
entail some completion, since these apiece constructively
make different ones.

Don't forget Goedel's incompleteness and Erdos' independence.

See, when you put them together, their "definitions",
if they disagree, then they model each other as examples
of fallacy, "false axioms".

Instead of just any random statement at all like as
after the quasi-modal non-monotonic non-entailment
"material implication" (neither material nor implication),
"ex falso quodlibet", instead it's "ex falso nihilum"
and a wider, fuller dialectic.


After all, if you're going to talk about a theory
of mathematical physics, it needs all of mathematical logic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894878

Le 03/01/2026 à 08:07, Thomas Heger a écrit :

> In my opinion the equation E= m*c² is wrong.

 E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²)

 If Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

 Then E=mc²/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

 No problem. 

 
> TH

 R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894863

Am Donnerstag000001, 01.01.2026 um 14:30 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> 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.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>>
>> 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.

Sure, I forgot Lise Meitner. Sorry.

But there had certainly been numerous others, who contributed something.

...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1905 refers to theory of relativity.
>>
>> But the article 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' (commonly 
>> called SRT) didn't contain that equation.
>>
>> So: which paper of 1905 actually did?
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Einstein_mc2.pdf
> 

Thanks!

I have never seen that paper before.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#894850

jojo wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am Montag000022, 22.12.2025 um 17:24 schrieb jojo:
> >>>>> Dawn Flood wrote:
> >>>>>> Professor Einstein died 75 years ago; now, if he was alive today, he
> >>>>>> may have thought differently about some things?!  Agreed??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> he wouldnt be able to get the patent clerk job because requirements have
> >>>>> probably become too much for him.
> >>>>
> >>>> He would have several problems today:
> >>>
> >>> You completely missed the point again.  Granted, it was a weak, trollish
> >>> point, easy to miss.
> >>>
> >>>> 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
> >>>> Quote
> >>>> "A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them
> >>>> access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to
> >>>> restricted areas,.."
> >>>
> >>> Einstein already did not get a security clearance for working on the
> >>> Manhattan Project.
> >>
> >> Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office in the early 20th century and
> >> roughly forty years earlier than the Manhattan Project took place.
> >>
> >>>> 2)https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter_(Schweiz)
> >>>> Switzerland has no 'Beamte' like in Germany. But you need to be elected
> >>>> into an office.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>>
> >> The patent offices of the world also contain state secrets.
> >>
> >> This wouldn't be much different in Switzerland.
> >>
> >> But Einstein was stateless alien and came from Germany. Many Swiss have
> >> hostile emotions towards Germany and Germans and are also not very
> >> 'philo-semitic'.
> >>
> >> Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense to assume, that Swiss authorities
> >> would have allowed an Einstein to look at their state secrets.
> >>
> >> A much more plausible assumption would have been, if Einstein's vitae
> >> was a fake and he was actually a Swiss agent and should spy on Germany
> >> and later in the USA.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > As I already mentioned before...
> >
> > Since Albert Einstein worked at a patent office for around ten years..
> > Albert Einstein told all his scientist friends to patent all their
> > designs on the
> > atomic bomb with complete details on how it works. All 2,000 of the
> > patents. (with all the instructions)
> > end up at the patent office where anybody (Russian spies) can get a copy
> > of it
> > and build one in Russia. Anyone, even from a foreign country had access
> > to all the
> > 2,000 of the atomic bomb patents.
> >
> > I mean, by they had to invent everything..because it didn't exist. (only
> > in Albert Einstein's mind the inventor of the atomic bomb)
> >
> > There are over 2,000 patents related to the building the atomic bomb.
> > (dat is how einstien convince scientist to get paid for helping
> > him build it)
> >
> >
> >
> > Albert Einstein built another atomic bomb in Russia. And he passed all
> > the secrets to Russia. Albert Einstein was The Master Spy!
> >
> > Of course, everyone he knew were his spies also and he had them pass
> > secrets to the Russians.
> >
> > Albert Einstein secretly passed all the patents to the Russians. All
> > 2,000 of the patents. (with all the instructions)
> >
> >
> > The FBI was not aware at that time about the patent office gateway...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hell, in those days you didn't need to make a prototype of a patent.
> >
> >
> 
> ok now that is mad, einstein helping russia build the bomb.

You have the right to draw your own conclusions:

Albert Einstein was very upset that they were arresting 'all his
friends'.


I mean, Albert Einstein 'hand picked' every single one of them.

Albert Einstein first started to pick scientists who were all members of
a communist society group.

Then he made sure those 12 scientist hand picked other communists
scientists, and so on and so on.


Albert Einstein WAS the Master Spy.


Albert Einstein transfered *thousands* of atomic secrets to Russia.


More than anyone else.


The FBI simply wasn't that smart then...


This is all they had on him...

https://www.paperlessarchives.com/einstein.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqYRusVtSWrSvonQVwZmIixRbJ3rsaV_KrTAw1Z9h6t8cVfXXTc

https://vault.fbi.gov/Albert%20Einstein

https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Files-F-B-I-Vault-ebook/dp/B0B64W78C3

A book reveals the 22-year effort by FBI director J Edgar Hoover to get
Albert Einstein arrested as a political subversive or even a Soviet spy. 


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2033324.stm

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/ 



-- 
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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web