Einstein's energy formula E=mc^2 is WRONG!

On 8 Sept, 13:40, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

[snip]

Moortel Moortel does the following discovery of Master Tom Roberts's
deserve a place among your fumbles?

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Yes, it absolutely deserves a place:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ervePlace.html
Thanks.

Dirk Vdm

Moortel Moortel how about this:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...86b4b365dee16?
Pentcho Valev: "CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?"
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...

[snip]

Moortel Moortel how about this:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...86b4b365dee16?
Pentcho Valev: "CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?"
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."

Pentcho Valev

We already have established that Pentcho Valev does not understand
and refuses to even try to understand the differences between:
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion

Exercise for the interested reader (by definition excluding Poncho):
Which differences are ignored in this specific message?

Dirk Vdm

Pentcho Valev a écrit : d'invraisemblables sornettes.

AAAAAAAAAAAA ma gauche, Albert Einstein, prix nobel, découvreur de la
théorie de la relativité, à ma droite Pentcho Valev, cuistre, raté
notoire et ignorant patenté. Qui va remporter cette impitoyable joute de
l'esprit ? Le suspense est insoutenable, mais avant ça, le combat du
siècle entre Mike Tyson et Woody Allen !

--
C'est à l'heure du repas
qu'on voit les boules du chat

"Asp Explorer" wrote in message ...
Pentcho Valev a écrit : d'invraisemblables sornettes.

AAAAAAAAAAAA ma gauche, Albert Einstein, prix nobel, découvreur de la théorie de la relativité, à ma droite Pentcho Valev,
cuistre, raté notoire et ignorant patenté. Qui va remporter cette impitoyable joute de l'esprit ? Le suspense est insoutenable,
mais avant ça, le combat du siècle entre Mike Tyson et Woody Allen !

Remplace par Woody Woodpecker.

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 9, 12:47 am, Asp Explorer wrote:
Pentcho Valev a écrit : d'invraisemblables sornettes.

AAAAAAAAAAAA ma gauche, Albert Einstein, prix nobel, découvreur de la
théorie de la relativité, à ma droite Pentcho Valev, cuistre, raté
notoire et ignorant patenté. Qui va remporter cette impitoyable joute de
l'esprit ? Le suspense est insoutenable, mais avant ça, le combat du
siècle entre Mike Tyson et Woody Allen !

--
C'est à l'heure du repas
qu'on voit les boules du chat

-----------
Einstein's E=mc2 is not confirmed in many aspects. It is confirmed, it
is scientific.
Information is available at
www.ajayonline.us

A part from www.ajayonline.us is pasted below
Discussion III
E is Proportional to mc2 (E µ mc2 or E = Ac2
M )

E= mc2 means, exactly energy is equal to mass annihilated times
c2.
There is no other possibility from E= mc2.
E= mc2 is confirmed in nuclear reactions i.e.(fission, fusion and
annihilation of matter and antimatter).But E= mc2 is not confirmed
in. chemical reactions, volcanic reactions, in some astrophysical and
cosmological reactions and process of creation of mass before Big
Bang.
In such cases the proportionality (E µ mc2 or E = Ac2 M) can be
justified.

The characteristic conditions of electron-
positrons annihilation process are different from chemical reactions
(nucleus remain unaffected e.g. burning of wood), and those of
chemical reactions are different from astrophysical or cosmological
reactions.

1. Hiroshima atomic explosion did not QUANTITATIVELY confirm E=mc2

The first ATOMIC explosion at Hiroshima, of atom bomb known as
'Little Boy' [U235 kg] , weighing 49kg , has justified E µ mc2 (or
DE = Ac2(M). E=mc2 is not quantitatively confirmed in this regard.
E= mc2 will be quantitatively confirmed in this regard if
(i) E, energy emitted
(ii) (M , mass of bomb annihilated
both are quantitatively measured and should be consistent with E= mc2
But it has not been done at all [1], but it is regarded as confirmed
which is not correct.
The scientific reference [1] is

[1] Serber , R The Los Alamos Primer (U.S. Govt. first published as
LA1, April 1946), declassified 1965 , annotated book , 1992.
also R . Serber (editor) , The Los Alamos Primer pp. 38 (Univ. of
California Press, 1992)

Thus it is equally feasible to assume that the energy emitted may be
less than E=mc2 (or E µ dmc2 or DE = Ac2DM) when reactants are in
bulk amount and various types of energies are simultaneously emitted.
Thus both the possibilities are equally probable until one is not
specifically rules out.

2. E= mc2 is not QUANTITATIVELY confirmed in the MOST ABUNDANT
chemical reactions.


Till date E= mc2 is not confirmed in the chemical reaction and reason
cited for this is that equipments are not enough sensitive [2].
[2] Beiser Arthor, Concepts of Modern Physics. (McGraw Hill
International Edition,
New York, 4th Edition) pp. 25, 27-30,420-422 6(1987).

Consider burning of 1kg straw or paper or
petrol in controlled way, ashes, gases and energy produced can be
estimated. Even if 0.001 kg or 1gm of matter is annihilated then
energy equal to 9×1013J (can drive a truck of mass 1000kg to distance
of 9×107 km) will be produced.
Until the equation is not confirmed in such
reactions, then scientifically it may be not be regarded as precisely
true in such cases. It is equally possible that energy emitted may be
less than predicted by E= mc2. Thus E µ mc2 or DE = Ac2(M is equally
possible in chemical reactions.

3. How FIRST PARTICLE of mass created in the universe?
It can be explained on the basis of
The Big Bang theory (the biggest energy releasing process universe)
assumes that whole mass of universe (1055 kg, say) was in form of
'primeval atom' and then suddenly exploded.
(i) According to E= mc2 this would have been created from energy
9×1071 J ( 1055×9×1016 J) but how this enormous amount of energy was
created in space out of nothing ?
Thus one query leads to another query. Hence creation
of mass or energy in formation of 'primeval atom' is not consistent
with E=mc2, hence proportionality E ( (mc2 ((E = Ac2DM), may be
considered.
(ii) This conflicting situation can be explained if DE = Ac2DM is
used and value of A (coefficient of proportionality) is
exceptionally-2 small in this particular case (A=1.111×10-122).
Hence significant amount of mass (1055kg) can be obtained from
infinitesimally small amount of energy (10-50 J). Thus it is
consistent.

4. Some existing experimental observations are not consistent with
E=mc2.
In laboratory it is confirmed [3-5] that using thermal neutrons the
total kinetic energy (TKE) of fission fragments that result from of
U235 and Pu239 is 20-60MeV less than Q-value (200MeV) of reaction
predicted by DE= Dmc2 . Similarly mass of particle Ds (2317) has been
found more than current estimates based upon DE= Dmc2. Thus in this
case E µ dmc2 is justified.


[3]. Hambsch, F.J. et al. Nucl. Phys.A, 491,p.56 (1989)
[4]. Thiereus, H. et al., Phys. Rev. C, 23 P 2104 (1981)
[5] Bakhoum, E. G. Physics Essays, Vol.15, No 1 2002
(Preprint archive : physics/0206061)

Source www.ajayonline.us