🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 9, 1:14 pm, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

[snip junk]

>
> You are more clever than Baez:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
>
> What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?
> You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same
> thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal
> to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there
> is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy
> there is mass. In that case photons have mass,
> but we call it relativistic mass.

Persistent imbecile. Photons have no relativistic mass either since
they have NO REST MASS.

There is an equivalence between energy and mass, but that does not
mean they are the same thing.

>
> http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/photosyn/1994-September/000439.html
> Photon Mass?
> Wei-Zhong He wzh at rio2.Berkeley.EDU
> Sat Sep 10 23:31:03 EST 1994
>
> Let's start with Einstein's equation:
>         E = mc^2
> This implies that anything with energy should
> have mass, too.
> For a photon, E=hv, where v is the frequency
> of light. Therefore, we have
>         m = hv/c^2
> To clear a bit of confusion, m is the relativity
> mass here.

How long did it take you to find that? Seriously.

>
>
>
> > > > You
> > > > want to mix SR and Newtonian gravitation, despite it being completely
> > > > stupid. You then conclude, because in one instance Newton and GR
> > > > agree, that "GR is not needed" despite a litany of evidence that
> > > > disagrees with Newton.
>
> > > I said and demonstrated that GR is not needed to explain
> > > the P&R result.
>
> > Too bad you are doing it in an inconsistent fashion.
>
> > SR is valid only locally. Gravitation, by definition, is affecting
> > light so SR cannot be used.
>
> > Photons are massless, and massless particles are not treated very well
> > by Newton.
>
> > Plus, who the fuck cares? You found correspondence between Newton and
> > GR at some limit, which is well known and expected. Now explain
> > gravitational lensing without GR.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes I can, but it would be a waste of time.

In other words, you cannot.

>
> Bye,
>
> Marcel Luttgens