In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

On Mar 16, 4:47 am, wrote:
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

This is why I wish people would stop focusing on the 1905 version of
relativity and worry more about the 2007 version that is actually
used. There is nothing to be gained in arguing about this.

wrote in message ups.com...
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

What's big deal? The guy was a ****wit, anyone can figure out
E= mc^2.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/DeriveMC2.htm

Squawk, Einstein, Screech, Baaa....
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF

wrote in message
ups.com...
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy.

Your reasoning is false as has been pointed out to you time and time again.
We now know, but was not known to Einstein at the time, that energy is the
conserved Noether charge associated with time symmetry - not the old
fashioned ideas dredged from Einstein's historical writings. Potential
energy is a classical concept not applicable to relativity because the
potential function depends on spatial coordinates - change the position of
the source of the potential and instantaneously the potential function
changes implying the force changes instantaneously - this is against the
foundations of relativity. See page 8 - Landau - Mechanics for a discussion
on this very fundamental point that was not known to Einstein in his early
days - it had to wait until Emily Noether, while working on a problem for
Einstein, came up with her very important and famous theorem. Einstein
himself gave it the highest of praise and subsequent developments in physics
has reinforced in very fundamental importance.

But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time).

Myself and others have been over this many times with you. You need to
understand the modern definition of energy - it has nothing to with
potential energy. Potential energy only appears in classical mechanics due
to the fact that time is an absolute. Once that condition is dropped in
relativity it can not exist. Read and understand Landau's reference where
this is explained in detail - in Landaus admittedly terse - but correct -
style.

Bill

By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 4:47 am, wrote:
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

This is why I wish people would stop focusing on the 1905 version of
relativity and worry more about the 2007 version that is actually
used. There is nothing to be gained in arguing about this.

Eric he pops up every now and then bringing up the same old rehashed stuff.
He utterly fails to understand potential energy is a classical concept not
applicable to relativity - and obviously so because since the potential
function depends only spatial coordinates it implies instantaneous
transmission of forces which is not allowed in relativity.

Thanks
Bill

On Mar 16, 8:47 am, wrote:
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

xxein: We have a database to go beyond present theories. Why are you
still arguing concepts of the past?

On 17 mar, 18:43, wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:47 am, wrote:





In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

xxein: We have a database to go beyond present theories. Why are you
still arguing concepts of the past?- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

When you write "concepts of the past" you mean "wrong concepts"? In
any case, they are not my concepts, but Einstein's ones (or used by
Einstein in 1905). I am referring to an historic fact, Einstein use
PoR and PoE to derive the mass-energy relationship. Are any of the
premises (PoR and PoE) considered wrong today? Or perhaps the derived
mass-energy relationship? But if all is O.K. in Einstein's paper, we
can continue making deductions from it, as the one I mentioned about
being rest mass an absolute measure of all kind of potential energies.
RVHG

On Mar 19, 6:04 am, wrote:
On 17 mar, 18:43, wrote:





On Mar 16, 8:47 am, wrote:

In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

xxein: We have a database to go beyond present theories. Why are you
still arguing concepts of the past?- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

When you write "concepts of the past" you mean "wrong concepts"? In
any case, they are not my concepts, but Einstein's ones (or used by
Einstein in 1905). I am referring to an historic fact, Einstein use
PoR and PoE to derive the mass-energy relationship. Are any of the
premises (PoR and PoE) considered wrong today? Or perhaps the derived
mass-energy relationship? But if all is O.K. in Einstein's paper, we
can continue making deductions from it, as the one I mentioned about
being rest mass an absolute measure of all kind of potential energies.
RVHG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What in the explanation that you received earlier about the
inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't
understand? Ah, you are somebody so idiotic as to live in Cuba in
these days ......

On 16 mar, 07:57, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:47 am, wrote:





In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

This is why I wish people would stop focusing on the 1905 version of
relativity and worry more about the 2007 version that is actually
used. There is nothing to be gained in arguing about this.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

(Third time that I try to answer)
Nothing to be gained? Why are you so sure? Both PoR and PoE are
considered valid today. If from them Einstein derived some result
considered wrong in 2007, by sure an explanation is needed. Let's go
to 1905 Sep 27. Consider a material point of mass M with the
gravitational potential -GM/r (r radial distance from the point,
potential energy U(inf) for a body of mass m_om considered 0 at
infinite=inf). Changing the zero potential point to the ABSOLUTE one
discovered by Einstein, we have the following. U(inf)=m_0m c^2. At a
distance r the body has rest mass m_0 with potential energy U(r)=m_0
c^2. We have then U(r)= m_om c^2 - (GM/r)m_0 = m_0 c^2, from where we
can obtain m_0=m_om(1+GM/rc^2). I suppose you can recognize the
characteristic General Relativity factor (but now obtained using only
1905 Relativity!). If m_0m is the "free" electron rest mass, the
Pound&Rebca experiment is explained using only 1905 Relativity
(because emitted frequency is proportional to electron rest mass, now
the variable m_0). I can advance you that also correct Mercury
perihelium calculations can be made using only 1905 Relativity, among
others. I will end with a question to you. Is changing the mass of a
free falling body? Maybe you can find an easy answer using 1905
Relativity.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

On Mar 19, 12:58 pm, wrote:
On 16 mar, 07:57, "EricGisse" wrote:



On Mar 16, 4:47 am, wrote:

In his 1905 Sep 27 paper, Einstein derived the mass-energy
relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, stated in his 1905
Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, conservation of energy
E = K + U, K: kinetic energy, U: potential energy). Even if he doesn't
use the word "potential", he handles very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants" characteristic of potential energies in 1905 (and
even today). He arrives to the conclusion that "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content" (in his own words). For a body at
rest (kinetic energy K=0, rest mass m_0), this implies E = U = m_0c^2,
measuring rest mass its potential energy. But this doesn't seem
compatible with the today meaning of rest mass as a body constant
intrinsic attribute (maybe this is only valid assuming a constant
potential condition). We can also note that in Einstein's conclusion
disappears the "arbitrary additive constants", emerging the m_0=0
condition as an ABSOLUTE zero potential point (and for all kind of
energies present at the same time). By sure all of this is sufficient
to open an interesting debate (I hope so).
RVHG

This is why I wish people would stop focusing on the 1905 version of
relativity and worry more about the 2007 version that is actually
used. There is nothing to be gained in arguing about this.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

(Third time that I try to answer)
Nothing to be gained? Why are you so sure? Both PoR and PoE are
considered valid today. If from them Einstein derived some result
considered wrong in 2007, by sure an explanation is needed. Let's go
to 1905 Sep 27. Consider a material point of mass M with the
gravitational potential -GM/r

[...]

Dead on arrival.