🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 9, 9:42 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, again. The formula E = mc^2 is _only true at rest_ or in a co-
> moving frame.
>
> I repeat, since you aren't getting it:
>
> E=mc^2 is only true if the particle is not moving.

You can repeat to yourself whatever amount of time you want, but the
end of the day the equation (E = m c^2) is valid at all conditions if
m is interpreted as the observed mass.  Since energy does not make any
sense without an observer or at least a reference point, the observed
energy and the observed mass all make a lot of sense.  Of course, it
is not to rat-brains.  <shrug>

So, we have

E = m' c^2

Where

**  m' = Observed mass

If the observer is at rest with the mass being observed by him, m'
becomes the rest mass.  Under the Schwarzschild metric, the observed
mass becomes the following where the curvature in spacetime decreases
the observed mass while the speed increases it.  This balances out.

m' = sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)

Where

**  U = G M / c^2 / r
**  B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)

Now, apply the above to the following.

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

Where

**  m = Strictly the rest mass
**  p = m' v = Momentum

Do you see the equation (E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2) is wrong in
general?  It only applies if (U = 0).

So, the correct equation is (E = m' c^2).  Now, get over with it.

> SR is valid only locally. Gravitation, by definition, is affecting
> light so SR cannot be used.

SR is not valid anywhere.  Through the combination of time dilation
and the principle of relativity, you cannot avoid the absurdity of the
twin's paradox.

> Photons are massless, and massless particles are not treated very well
> by Newton.

Wrong!  Although a photon has zero rest mass, it still has an observed
mass.  Newtonian law of gravity allows the photon to bend.  Have you
not see the derivation?

> Plus, who the fuck cares?

I know you don't, but I do.

> You found correspondence between Newton and
> GR at some limit, which is well known and expected. Now explain
> gravitational lensing without GR.

Consult with Lord Cavendish's and Soldner's works.

> > Btw, the formula E = mc^2 was known before Einstein,
> > so I don't mix SR and Newton.
>
> Provide a citation for it being known before Einstein, if you can.

In Einstein's 1st 1905 paper on relativity, he made a series of
mathematical mistakes deriving the equation (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 -
v^2 / c^2)).  This proves that he knew the answer before hand.
Probably from Lorentz.  As you know, whoever did it first could easily
have written down the observed mass as the following.

m' = m sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Then, the kinetic energy is actually a negative quantity.

Your idol, Einstein, was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.  <shrug>