info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein's mass energy equation inadequate, claims Bharatiya researcher
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Jan 10, 2016, 5:55:04 PM1/10/16
to
Einstein's mass energy equation inadequate, claims Indian
researcher
IANS
The Hindu
thehindu.com
Sunday, January 10, 2016
"Although well-established, equation has to be critically
analysed & new results would definitely emerge"
Shimla - Albert Einstein's mass energy equation (E=mc2)
is inadequate as it has not been completely studied and
is only valid under special conditions, an Indian
researcher has claimed in an international paper.
Einstein considered just two light waves of equal energy
emitted in opposite directions with uniform relative
velocity, Ajay Sharma, a Shimla-based researcher who
challenged Einstein's derivation, said on Sunday.
The equation was proposed by Einstein in 1905.
His technical paper -- The mathematical derivation or
speculation of E=mc2, in Einstein's September 1905 paper,
and some peculiar experiments -- was published by Bauman
Moscow State Technical University in Moscow last month.
E=mc2 means energy is equal to mass multiplied by the
speed of light squared.
Mr. Sharma, an assistant director for education with the
Himachal Pradesh government, told IANS that Einstein's
theory has not been studied completely.
"It's only valid under special conditions of the
parameters involved, e.g. number of light waves,
magnitude of light energy, angles at which waves are
emitted and relative velocity," he said.
Einstein considered just two light waves of equal energy,
emitted in opposite directions and the relative velocity
uniform. There are numerous possibilities for the
parameters which were not considered in Einstein's 1905
derivation, said Mr. Sharma's paper.
This equation expresses the fact that mass and energy are
the same physical entity and can be changed into each
other, the paper said.
It said E=mc2 is obtained from L=mc2 by simply replacing
L by E (all energy) without derivation by Einstein. "It's
illogical," he said.
The paper said W.L. Fadner correctly pointed out that
Einstein did not mention E in the derivation.
Mr. Sharma's book, Beyond Einstein and E=mc2 published by
the Cambridge International Science Publishers, says
Einstein was not the original propounder of the theory of
relativity -- rather he took work from existing
literature and published it in 1905 in German journal
Annalen de Physik.
"Many people will be surprised that Einstein's work was
not peer reviewed before publication. The first postulate
of relativity was given by Galileo in 1632 in his book
'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems'," the
51-year-old Mr. Sharma said.
According to him, Einstein took this opportunity to
publish the work of Galileo (1632, Principle of
Relativity), Poincare (1898, Constancy of Velocity of
Light), Lorentz (1892, Variation of Mass etc), Larmer
(1897, Time Dilation), and Fitzegerald (1889, Length
Contraction) in his own name.
Although Einstein's theory is well established, it has to
be critically analysed and the new results would
definitely emerge, a beaming Mr. Sharma added.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/einsteins-mass-energy-equation-emc2-inadequate-claims-indian-researcher/article8089094.ece
More at:
The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
researcher
IANS
The Hindu
thehindu.com
Sunday, January 10, 2016
"Although well-established, equation has to be critically
analysed & new results would definitely emerge"
Shimla - Albert Einstein's mass energy equation (E=mc2)
is inadequate as it has not been completely studied and
is only valid under special conditions, an Indian
researcher has claimed in an international paper.
Einstein considered just two light waves of equal energy
emitted in opposite directions with uniform relative
velocity, Ajay Sharma, a Shimla-based researcher who
challenged Einstein's derivation, said on Sunday.
The equation was proposed by Einstein in 1905.
His technical paper -- The mathematical derivation or
speculation of E=mc2, in Einstein's September 1905 paper,
and some peculiar experiments -- was published by Bauman
Moscow State Technical University in Moscow last month.
E=mc2 means energy is equal to mass multiplied by the
speed of light squared.
Mr. Sharma, an assistant director for education with the
Himachal Pradesh government, told IANS that Einstein's
theory has not been studied completely.
"It's only valid under special conditions of the
parameters involved, e.g. number of light waves,
magnitude of light energy, angles at which waves are
emitted and relative velocity," he said.
Einstein considered just two light waves of equal energy,
emitted in opposite directions and the relative velocity
uniform. There are numerous possibilities for the
parameters which were not considered in Einstein's 1905
derivation, said Mr. Sharma's paper.
This equation expresses the fact that mass and energy are
the same physical entity and can be changed into each
other, the paper said.
It said E=mc2 is obtained from L=mc2 by simply replacing
L by E (all energy) without derivation by Einstein. "It's
illogical," he said.
The paper said W.L. Fadner correctly pointed out that
Einstein did not mention E in the derivation.
Mr. Sharma's book, Beyond Einstein and E=mc2 published by
the Cambridge International Science Publishers, says
Einstein was not the original propounder of the theory of
relativity -- rather he took work from existing
literature and published it in 1905 in German journal
Annalen de Physik.
"Many people will be surprised that Einstein's work was
not peer reviewed before publication. The first postulate
of relativity was given by Galileo in 1632 in his book
'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems'," the
51-year-old Mr. Sharma said.
According to him, Einstein took this opportunity to
publish the work of Galileo (1632, Principle of
Relativity), Poincare (1898, Constancy of Velocity of
Light), Lorentz (1892, Variation of Mass etc), Larmer
(1897, Time Dilation), and Fitzegerald (1889, Length
Contraction) in his own name.
Although Einstein's theory is well established, it has to
be critically analysed and the new results would
definitely emerge, a beaming Mr. Sharma added.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/einsteins-mass-energy-equation-emc2-inadequate-claims-indian-researcher/article8089094.ece
More at:
The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
Helmut Wabnig
Jan 11, 2016, 2:07:09 AM1/11/16
to
"Analyzing" a 1905 publication in the year 2015.
Claiming that Einstein copied the equation,
without giving sources from where he copied,
and not demonstrating the source and the copy together.
Replacing L by E, the article claims.
Ridiculous.
Anyhow, this is 110 years too late, if I am right.
And superfluous.
And wrong.
Not even wrong.
w.
Mr. B1ack
Jan 11, 2016, 8:58:22 AM1/11/16
to
not an "anti-Einstein rant".
Newtonian physics IS correct ... but Einsteins work
showed that it's correct only given an extremely
specific set of conditions that would never persist
for very long. Newton wasn't wrong, he was just
"incomplete" - did as well as he could with what he
had in the time he had.
Einstein likewise may be "incomplete". We've already
seen the problems of relativity -vs- quantum ... frankly
BOTH theories are lacking here, it's insanely hard to
get rules that apply to every scale from either theory.
E=mc2 also may be a "special case". Remember
that Einstein was under time pressure when he was
working out his theories and could easily have given
us an equation for a "simple instance" and not had
the time/energy/skill to explore whether it applied to
EVERY possible instance.
Darwin didn't give us a complete accounting of
natural selection/evolution, Newton didn't give us
a complete cosmological physics, chemistry
didn't end with Linus Pauling and Einstein
likely didn't give us a complete physics either.
They weren't WRONG, they just didn't manage
to cover everything. A truely "complete" physics
for our (apparently 9 (11?) dimensional) universe
isn't gonna come for quite some time yet. It'll
probably require seriously amped-up human
brainpower synced with massive computer power.
Einstein ranks as a "great scientist" but do not
mistake him for some omniscent god-figure. He
did as well as he could with what he had and the
time allotted. It took us another big step forward,
but more steps surely remain. The work of the
abovementioned researchers doesn't cheapen
Einstein, he's yet another giant upon whose
shoulders THEY will stand.
(But no, Einsteins relativity and Galileos have
very very little in common beyond noting that
relative relationships exist)
0 new messages