🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 9, 10:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>

Does there exist even one subject that other people agree that you
understand?

>
> So, we have
>
> E = m' c^2
>
> Where
>
> **  m' = Observed mass

I observe an electron to have 0.511 MeV/c^2 mass whether it is moving
or not. Your formula is wrong.

>
> 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)

I wonder if you can actually derive this yourself.

>
> 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).

NO SHIT. The formula is derived assuming Minkowski space.

Do you really think this is news to anyone?

>
> 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.

The only thing we cannot avoid is your perpetual stupidity.

>
> > 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?

It gets the answer wrong, so your argument is less than compelling.

>
> > 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)

They would be wrong, which is why nobody ever did that.

>
> Then, the kinetic energy is actually a negative quantity.

You are stupid.

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

Nope, you are just stupid.