stephen hawking

In 2013, Hua Di[1] noticed an error in Albert Einstein's
paper[2]: "Erklrung Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus". Di pointed out that Einstein had incorrectly calculated the integration. The actual angle from the integration should be 71 instead of 43 as Einstein had obtained. In 2017, Di's calculation was verified by N. V. Kupryaev[3].
Unknown to both Di and Kupryaev, there is another error in Einstein's integration equation more serious than the integration error. Einstein made an assumption in order to obtain three roots for the equation used for integration. The assumption is incorrect. There is no need for Di to verify Einstein's error at all because two of theroots are imaginary numbers.

Xadoman wrote:
LIGO, LISA Destined to Detect Nothing

https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0139v1.pdf

It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational
waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years
or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search
go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit
that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is,
from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing.
Here are some reasons why.
Einstein's gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed
of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a
different speed of propagation. Einstein and his followers deliberately choose a set of
coordinates that gives the speed of propagation as that of light in vacuum (i.e. c =
2.998x108
m/s). There is no a priori reason why this particular set of coordinates is
better than any other. The sole reason for their choice is to obtain the desired result.
Such a method has no validity in science. Here is what the late British scientist Arthur
S. Eddington pointed out in his book, 'The mathematical theory of relativity',
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 1960:
"The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with
the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation;
but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are
chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical
importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the
speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice
of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely
introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the
propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious
circle."
In their calculations for Einstein's gravitational waves, the relativists utilise a
mathematical entity called Einstein's pseudo-tensor. In the words of the late British
physicist Paul A. M. Dirac ('General Theory of Relativity', Princeton Landmarks in
Physics Series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996),
"It is not possible to obtain an expression for the energy of the gravitational field
satisfying both the conditions: (i) when added to other forms of energy the total
energy is conserved, and (ii) the energy within a definite (three dimensional) region at
a certain time is independent of the coordinate system. Thus, in general, gravitational
energy cannot be localized. The best we can do is to use the pseudotensor, which
2
satisfies condition (i) but not condition (ii). It gives us approximate information about
gravitational energy, which in some special cases can be accurate."
"Let us consider the energy of these waves. Owing to the pseudo-tensor not being a
real tensor, we do not get, in general, a clear result independent of the coordinate
system. But there is one special case in which we do get a clear result; namely, when
the waves are all moving in the same direction."
Now Einstein realised that his field equations do not satisfy the usual conservation of
energy and momentum for a closed system and so, in order to save his theory from
this catastrophe he simply invented something, ad hoc, to make his theory (apparently)
satisfy the usual conservation laws; namely, his pseudo-tensor. Not only is this
unscientific, it is also unconscionable, and completely fallacious for the following
reason. Assumption of the validity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor implies the existence
of a mathematical entity called a first-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. an
invariant which is dependent solely upon the components of the metric tensor and
their first derivatives. One does not even have to know the details of this; all one
needs to know is that the pure mathematicians, Georgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio
Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved, in the year 1900, that such
invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a
meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and consequently everything
relying upon it, such as Einstein gravitational waves, is meaningless

Abstract- It is embarrassing for physical science that it can be demonstrated in a very easy philosophical way why black holes have nothing to do with real physics.

Argumentation
Copied from reference [1]:
"A black hole is a region of space-time where gravity is so strong that nothing — no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it."

Comment

If a photon would be a particle it would, by definition, have mass. A photon propagates in vacuum, by definition too, with the velocity of light. According to Einstein's theories of relativity such a photon must have an infinite mass, as generally accepted by supporters of these theories. See also chapter VIII of [2].

Based on Einstein's theories of relativity the first conclusion must be that a photon is not a particle. Consequently "electromagnetic radiation such as light" is massless.
Based on the definition of gravity, the second conclusion must be that gravity, of whatever strength, cannot affect electromagnetic radiation.

Reference [3], written by Hawking, states about black holes: "The work that Roger Penrose and I did between1965 and 1970 showed that, according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density, within the black hole."
Copied from reference [1] too:

"Black holes of stellar mass form when massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed, it can grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. Supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses (M☉) may form by absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes. There is consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centres of most galaxies."

Comment
The highest possible mass density in real physics is the one of a proton or neutron: about 5ž1017 kg/m3.
Given the maximum possible mass density in real physics, black holes must be composed of magic matter, which contradicts their alleged formation.

Xadoman wrote:

Abstract- It is embarrassing for physical science that it can be demonstrated in a very easy philosophical way why black holes have nothing to do with real physics.

Xadoman posted: If a photon would be a particle, it would, by definition, have mass.

Xadoman posted:According to Einstein's theories of relativity such a photon must have an infinite mass

Xadoman posted: The highest possible mass density in real physics is the one of a proton or neutron

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It sounds to me as if you are confused about the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic" mass.

b]E=mc2 : a self-evident non-physical equation[/b]

The equation E=mc2 is a result of the General Theory of Relativity, which is, on its turn, a result of the Special Theory of Relativity. Mind-blowing, but above all shocking, from a scientific point of view, is de myth around this equation.

Kinetic energy considerations

The equation E=mc2 suggests a kinetic energy, with the problem that it doesn't fit with the expression
E=½mv2, replacing v by c. Because E=½mv2 is a correct equation without any doubt, E=mc2 can't be correct as well. Why isn't it possible that E=½mv2, with v=c? If there would be a reason for that, might it be then that v equals c-ε met ε arbitrarily small?
The mass in the equation under consideration is not just a normal mass but, according to the GTR, a socalled relativistic mass, of which the value depends on its constant velocity v, mathematically written as: m = mrest / √ 1-v2/c2 .
Based on the approximation: 1/√1-ε ~ 1+ε/2 , m can also be written as: m ~ mrest( 1 + ½ v2/c2 ) Both sides of this equation multiplied with c2 results in:
mc2 ~ mrestc2 + ½mrest v2
Quoted from Wikipedia (a few years ago): The first term mrestc2 is large, but stays unchanged in daily live, so we will hardly observe, except in case of, for example, nuclear power.
The term mrestc2 is called rest energy.
Mind alone the word, its contradiction in itself and the fact that mrest can only be in rest relative to an object that has the same velocity as mrest .
Later on in Wikipedia the "importance" of this equation has been accentuated by stating:
"Due to the enormous factor c2 in the formula, 1 gram mass correspondents with 8,988 × 1013 joule. This is the heating energy of 15 000 barrels crude oil, but also the energy of a bomb of 21.4 kiloton TNT: the same order of magnitude as the atomic bomb Little Boy that destroyed Hiroshima."
Very impressive that, for example, a flint of say 10 gram does have a rest-energy equivalent to the heating energy of 150.000 barrels crude oil, which we hardly "observe in daily live". An energy also equivalent toan atomic bomb with which 10 Hiroshima's can be destroyed. A flint as Big Boy.


Relativistic mass considerations

Firstly:

A fundamental question regarding the "mass at rest" is: what is the chosen reference for determining a mass at rest? No mass is at rest at all in an absolute sense. It always has a velocity and is only in rest relative to an object with the same velocity.

Secondly:

If a mass does have a velocity v1 relative to reference 1 and velocity v2 relative to reference 2, then it would have, at the same time, different relativistic masses, only depending on the reference that is taken to determine its velocity.

In as well the STR as the GTR such contradictions are "explained" by stating that the mentioned references have to be considered as observers, which observe these mutual different relativistic masses.

In these theories it has never been specified at all how such an observation is carried out. Besides that, this "explanation" contains two fundamental errors:

1. In genuine physics, theory and measurement are carefully distinguished. A theory describes what physically happens. In order to verify a theory, measurements have to be carried out. In STR and GTR these two things are mixed up: the theory includes already "measurements".

2. A mass of which its value would depend on its constant velocity contradicts with the Principle of Relativity*, the postulate in physics that states that physical laws are the same in all inertial systems. As a result: certainly the value of a mass is constant. So, in genuine physics mass does have a certain constant value, independent of its velocity, and if two observers would observe mutual different values, at least one observer carried out a wrong measurement.

Conclusion:
The equation E=mc2 is, considered from several points of view, a nonsense equation, leading to ridiculous conclusions about the amount of energy of masses "in rest", added to the undefined reference regarding that "in rest".

Xadoman wrote:
More links and quotes:

Physics since Einstein

https://vixra.org/pdf/2107.0027v5.pdf

[

b]E=mc2 : a self-evident non-physical equation[/b]

The equation E=mc2 is a result of the General Theory of Relativity, which is, on its turn, a result of the Special Theory of Relativity. Mind-blowing, but above all shocking, from a scientific point of view, is de myth around this equation.

Kinetic energy considerations

The equation E=mc2 suggests a kinetic energy, with the problem that it doesn't fit with the expression
E=½mv2, replacing v by c. Because E=½mv2 is a correct equation without any doubt, E=mc2 can't be correct as well. Why isn't it possible that E=½mv2, with v=c? If there would be a reason for that, might it be then that v equals c-ε met ε arbitrarily small?
The mass in the equation under consideration is not just a normal mass but, according to the GTR, a socalled relativistic mass, of which the value depends on its constant velocity v, mathematically written as: m = mrest / √ 1-v2/c2 .
Based on the approximation: 1/√1-ε ~ 1+ε/2 , m can also be written as: m ~ mrest( 1 + ½ v2/c2 ) Both sides of this equation multiplied with c2 results in:
mc2 ~ mrestc2 + ½mrest v2
Quoted from Wikipedia (a few years ago): The first term mrestc2 is large, but stays unchanged in daily live, so we will hardly observe, except in case of, for example, nuclear power.
The term mrestc2 is called rest energy.
Mind alone the word, its contradiction in itself and the fact that mrest can only be in rest relative to an object that has the same velocity as mrest .
Later on in Wikipedia the "importance" of this equation has been accentuated by stating:
"Due to the enormous factor c2 in the formula, 1 gram mass correspondents with 8,988 × 1013 joule. This is the heating energy of 15 000 barrels crude oil, but also the energy of a bomb of 21.4 kiloton TNT: the same order of magnitude as the atomic bomb Little Boy that destroyed Hiroshima."
Very impressive that, for example, a flint of say 10 gram does have a rest-energy equivalent to the heating energy of 150.000 barrels crude oil, which we hardly "observe in daily live". An energy also equivalent toan atomic bomb with which 10 Hiroshima's can be destroyed. A flint as Big Boy.


Relativistic mass considerations

Firstly:

A fundamental question regarding the "mass at rest" is: what is the chosen reference for determining a mass at rest? No mass is at rest at all in an absolute sense. It always has a velocity and is only in rest relative to an object with the same velocity.

Secondly:

If a mass does have a velocity v1 relative to reference 1 and velocity v2 relative to reference 2, then it would have, at the same time, different relativistic masses, only depending on the reference that is taken to determine its velocity.

In as well the STR as the GTR such contradictions are "explained" by stating that the mentioned references have to be considered as observers, which observe these mutual different relativistic masses.

In these theories it has never been specified at all how such an observation is carried out. Besides that, this "explanation" contains two fundamental errors:

1. In genuine physics, theory and measurement are carefully distinguished. A theory describes what physically happens. In order to verify a theory, measurements have to be carried out. In STR and GTR these two things are mixed up: the theory includes already "measurements".

2. A mass of which its value would depend on its constant velocity contradicts with the Principle of Relativity*, the postulate in physics that states that physical laws are the same in all inertial systems. As a result: certainly the value of a mass is constant. So, in genuine physics mass does have a certain constant value, independent of its velocity, and if two observers would observe mutual different values, at least one observer carried out a wrong measurement.

Conclusion:
The equation E=mc2 is, considered from several points of view, a nonsense equation, leading to ridiculous conclusions about the amount of energy of masses "in rest", added to the undefined reference regarding that "in rest".

Summary - Showing that the Special Theory of Relativity is an untenable theory, many times leads to the reaction that the GPS is so accurate thanks to the STR corrections. This chapter shows that the supposed relativity errors are by far negligible relative to the errors caused by atmospheric circumstances.


In [2] the GPS configuration is described as follows.

"The orbiting component of the GPS consists of 24 satellites (plus spares): four satellites in each
of six different planes inclined 550 from Earth's equatorial plane. The satellites are positioned
within their planes so that, from almost any place on Earth, at least four are above the horizon atany time. Orbiting about 20.000 km above Earth's surface, all satellites have periods of 11 hours and 58 minutes."

So the angular velocity of the satellites is twice as high as the one of the earth.

The basic equations are:

|r – ri| = c(t - ti) with i representing satellite number 1 up to and including 4

r position of the receiver (on or near the earth's surface)

ri position of the ith satellite

ti time of emitting a signal from the ith satellite

t time of the clock of the receiver when it receives the 4 signals simultaneously

The "variable" c is described in [2] as:

"The fundamental principle on which GPS navigation works is an apparently simple application
of the second postulate of special relativity – namely, the constancy of c, the speed of light."

3 Error budgets

If the above shown definitions of the variables are correct then the system is seemingly be able to detect the simultaneousness of the receiving of the 4 signals. To prevent discussions about this it is also possible to look at the equations in another, more easier, way: t is the time that at position r a signal is simultaneously transmitted to 4 satellites at position ri, where they are received at time ti respectively.

Ashby's argumentation, regarding the impact of the STR on the accuracy of the value of r, is that, given c as a physical constant, the values of ti are influenced by time dilation due to the velocity of the satellites. A velocity of 4 km/s is mentioned. That velocity indeed corresponds to an angular velocity twice as high asthe one of the earth.

The most important mistake in [2] is that c is considered as constant on the trajectory|r – ri|. Thesatellites orbit at a distance of about 20.000 km above earth's surface. In between is the atmosphere. Its mean thickness is about 100 km. As generally known the velocity of light in air is certainly not c.

N.B. c is the symbol for the velocity of light in vacuum, leaving out for the moment the reference withrespect to which this velocity is defined. Therefore this symbol has not been used properly
up to now.

Propagating through air, the velocity c decreases with the factor 1/n, with n the so-called refractive index. Due the fact that the refractive index depends on for example temperature, density and relative humidity, the 4 paths along which the 4 signals propagate in general are mutual different and thus is the mean propagation velocity of the light along these 4 paths.

Suppose the distance between the receiver and satellite i is Di, the mean refractive index of the
atmosphere along the path of signal i to satellite i is ni and the thickness of the atmosphere, along which this mean refractive index is applicable, is di. Then the mean velocity of signal i is:
ci = {c(Di - di) + (c/ni)ždi }/Di = c { 1 - (di/Di) (1 – 1/ni) }
N.B. ci = c for either di = 0 or ni = 1.
Let us consider the most simple situation, meaning that all di's, respectively Di's, are mutual equal.
Then:
ci-cj = c (d/D) (1/ni –1/nj) = c (d/D) (nj –ni) / ni nj
If ni is rewritten as 1 + Δni , then ci-cj = c (d/D) (Δnj –Δni).
The factor ni nj is omitted, because it only represents a multiplication factor, close to 1, for the accuracy
Δnj –Δni to be investigated.
The absolute value of the relative difference between the two velocities, (ci-cj)/c, is (d/D)ž|Δnj –Δni|,
resulting in relative time errors of the same value.
According to Ashby, relative time errors are, due to "time delation", considered to be much too large to ignore. He claims relative time errors of about 10-10.
Ashby writes:
" t' = √ (1 – v2/c2) . t (27)
Thus, a clock moving relative to a system of synchronized clocks in an inertial frame beats more slowly.
The square root in Eq. (27) can be approximately expanded using the binomial theorem:
√ (1 – v2/c2) ≈ 1-v2/2c2 (28)
In the GPS, satellite velocities are close to 4000 m/s, so the order of magnitude of the time dilation effect
is v2/2c2 ≈ 10−10 . This is also a huge effect."
The absolute error of a normal GPS is about 15 m [3]: "The standard accuracy of about 15 meters can
be..............". Relatively speaking this is an error of 15/2ž107 ~ 10-6.

So Ashby claims an error due to "time dilation" 10.000 times smaller than the real error.

The refractive index of air at atmospheric pressure is 1.0003. Above 100 km height the pressure is so low
that we can assume a refractive index of 1.
Suppose the mean refractive index of this layer of 100 km is 1.0002, so the mean Δni is 2ž10-4. Suppose
10% of this mean value causes the difference |Δnj –Δni |, being 2ž10-5.
Then (d/D)ž|Δnj –Δni| = (100/20000)ž2ž10-5 = 10-7.
Compared to the real relative accuracy of 10-6 it turns out that the assumed mutual differences in refractive indices are most likely too optimistic.
But besides that, there are several other sources for inaccuracies [3].
The relative error as a result of the relative velocity between satellite and earth surface ((4-2)km/s) is 2/300000000, being about 10-8, so negligible. See the chapters: I, V and VI.

4 The misconception: time dilation

Einstein introduced this concept based on, among others, the nonsense hypothesis:
Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
The result is that (atomic) clocks will run with a speed dependant on their state of constant velocity. But a clock in a state of constant velocity represents an inertial system. So, given the hypothesis: all physical laws are the same in any inertial system, a clock in a state of an arbitrary constant velocity will not show any deviation.
Satellites can, given their large distance relative to the centre of the earth, be considered as inertial systems!

Conclusion
Claiming that the GPS is so accurate due to relativity corrections is, for more than one reason, nonsense

Why not publish your findings in the journal of mental health

Einstein now introduces a moving rod, with a constant velocity v relative to the "stationary" system, defining the ends by means of A respectively B. He considers two methods to measure the length l of this rod:

-method "a" directly by means of a measuring rod in the moving system of the rod,

-method "b" by means of clocks and with help of a light ray in the "stationary" system.

"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call 'the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.' This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l."

With this statement he made the following fundamental mistake: if the length of the rod is l, as measured by method "a", and method "b" results in a value that differs from l, than the only correct conclusion isthat method "b" has been carried out incorrectly.

The principle that all physical laws are the same in any inertial system forbids that the length of the rod changes in such situations. Effectively Galilei told us already 400 years ago too.

Einstein's following statement shows another inconsistency in his considerations.

"Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that tB − tA = rAB/c – v and t'A − tB = rAB/c + v, where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system."

The inconsistency concerns the fact that he applies the Newtonian law of addition of velocities, while the end result of his theory forbids such an addition.

Besides that Einstein accepts velocities larger than c in one of the expressions above, while the outcome of his theory also forbids such velocities.

Xadoman wrote:

Why not publish your findings in the journal of mental health

Because you need help. You are brainwashed. You belive in quantum computers

Xadoman wrote:
Some more quotes:

Einstein's following statement shows another inconsistency in his considerations.

"Let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA, let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that tB − tA = rAB/c – v and t'A − tB = rAB/c + v, where rAB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system."

The inconsistency concerns the fact that he applies the Newtonian law of addition of velocities, while the end result of his theory forbids such an addition.

Besides that Einstein accepts velocities larger than c in one of the expressions above, while the outcome of his theory also forbids such velocities.

LOL if you were smart you would invest in quantum computing now, instead of investing in cheap Bud Light and pink panties

Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

Xadoman wrote:

LOL if you were smart you would invest in quantum computing now, instead of investing in cheap Bud Light and pink panties

Just another pyramid scheme. Jump in early and leave before it collapses.

Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

The church of Einstein is still too strong here. We need to show how ridiculous the math behind his theories is. The church of big bang and black holes is spawned from the church of Einstein.

keepit wrote: ibd, It sounds to me as if you are confused about the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic" mass.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: ibd, It sounds to me as if you are confused about the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic" mass.

keepit, have I mentioned today that you are a moron?

Only scientifically illiterate morons rush to Wikipedia to find out what they should say next. Your attempt to pretend that "rest mass" is actually a thing gives you away.

keepit, what photons do you believe are at rest? I want an answer.

Swan wrote:LOL you are age regressing so fast that you will become an embryo any day now

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL you are age regressing so fast that you will become an embryo any day now

Swan, you're just a lot of baloney, with cherry tomato sauce.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
It sounds to me as if you are confused about the difference between "rest mass" and "relativistic" mass.

Xadoman wrote:
More links and quotes:

Physics since Einstein

https://vixra.org/pdf/2107.0027v5.pdf

[

b]E=mc2 : a self-evident non-physical equation[/b]

The equation E=mc2 is a result of the General Theory of Relativity, which is, on its turn, a result of the Special Theory of Relativity. Mind-blowing, but above all shocking, from a scientific point of view, is de myth around this equation.

Kinetic energy considerations

The equation E=mc2 suggests a kinetic energy, with the problem that it doesn't fit with the expression
E=½mv2, replacing v by c. Because E=½mv2 is a correct equation without any doubt, E=mc2 can't be correct as well. Why isn't it possible that E=½mv2, with v=c? If there would be a reason for that, might it be then that v equals c-ε met ε arbitrarily small?
The mass in the equation under consideration is not just a normal mass but, according to the GTR, a socalled relativistic mass, of which the value depends on its constant velocity v, mathematically written as: m = mrest / √ 1-v2/c2 .
Based on the approximation: 1/√1-ε ~ 1+ε/2 , m can also be written as: m ~ mrest( 1 + ½ v2/c2 ) Both sides of this equation multiplied with c2 results in:
mc2 ~ mrestc2 + ½mrest v2
Quoted from Wikipedia (a few years ago): The first term mrestc2 is large, but stays unchanged in daily live, so we will hardly observe, except in case of, for example, nuclear power.
The term mrestc2 is called rest energy.
Mind alone the word, its contradiction in itself and the fact that mrest can only be in rest relative to an object that has the same velocity as mrest .
Later on in Wikipedia the "importance" of this equation has been accentuated by stating:
"Due to the enormous factor c2 in the formula, 1 gram mass correspondents with 8,988 × 1013 joule. This is the heating energy of 15 000 barrels crude oil, but also the energy of a bomb of 21.4 kiloton TNT: the same order of magnitude as the atomic bomb Little Boy that destroyed Hiroshima."
Very impressive that, for example, a flint of say 10 gram does have a rest-energy equivalent to the heating energy of 150.000 barrels crude oil, which we hardly "observe in daily live". An energy also equivalent toan atomic bomb with which 10 Hiroshima's can be destroyed. A flint as Big Boy.


Relativistic mass considerations

Firstly:

A fundamental question regarding the "mass at rest" is: what is the chosen reference for determining a mass at rest? No mass is at rest at all in an absolute sense. It always has a velocity and is only in rest relative to an object with the same velocity.

Secondly:

If a mass does have a velocity v1 relative to reference 1 and velocity v2 relative to reference 2, then it would have, at the same time, different relativistic masses, only depending on the reference that is taken to determine its velocity.

In as well the STR as the GTR such contradictions are "explained" by stating that the mentioned references have to be considered as observers, which observe these mutual different relativistic masses.

In these theories it has never been specified at all how such an observation is carried out. Besides that, this "explanation" contains two fundamental errors:

1. In genuine physics, theory and measurement are carefully distinguished. A theory describes what physically happens. In order to verify a theory, measurements have to be carried out. In STR and GTR these two things are mixed up: the theory includes already "measurements".

2. A mass of which its value would depend on its constant velocity contradicts with the Principle of Relativity*, the postulate in physics that states that physical laws are the same in all inertial systems. As a result: certainly the value of a mass is constant. So, in genuine physics mass does have a certain constant value, independent of its velocity, and if two observers would observe mutual different values, at least one observer carried out a wrong measurement.

Conclusion:
The equation E=mc2 is, considered from several points of view, a nonsense equation, leading to ridiculous conclusions about the amount of energy of masses "in rest", added to the undefined reference regarding that "in rest".

Swan wrote:
Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

Xadoman wrote:

LOL if you were smart you would invest in quantum computing now, instead of investing in cheap Bud Light and pink panties

Just another pyramid scheme. Jump in early and leave before it collapses.

Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

The church of Einstein is still too strong here. We need to show how ridiculous the math behind his theories is. The church of big bang and black holes is spawned from the church of Einstein.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

No such proof.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Einstein did his math and proved that there was no big bang in what he called a static universe. So leave the dumb uncombed clown alone already

No such proof.

History is the proof of Einsteins static universe bibble babble