On 101st Birthday of Einstein's E=mc2
physicsajay
derivation.
It is not consistent prediction from Einstein’s Sep 1905
derivation.
(written in response to comments)
How eq.(13) at page 201 in my paper I incorrect ? Then what is
correct equation?
In fact Eq.(13) in paper at page 201 is correct absolutely.
””””Eq.(13) is based of Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation ,
that THEORETICALLY when body emits Light Energy , the mass of body
INCREASE in some cases.”””””””
It is explained below in THREE SECTIONS.
Section A.
(i) Einstein has considered A body of mass 10gm (say), it emits two
waves under special conditions (two waves of equal energy L/2 each ,
emitted in opposite directions w.r.t measuring system) . Obviously
mass decreases, which is converted to light energy and Einstein‘s
equation is
L =dmc2
Energy emitted = decrease in mass .c2 (1)
(ii) If we consider the same body , it emits light energy at angle 90
w.r.t to the moving system , then again Einstein’s derivation gives
L =mc2
Energy emitted = decrease in mass .c2 (2)
Both the cases are correct . Eq.(2) is not derived by Einstein.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
(iii) If we consider the same body , it emits light energy at angle
90 o w.r.t to the moving system , then again Einstein’s derivation
gives
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89 o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13) at
page 201 of paper
Thus Einstein’s derivation implies that when body emits light energy
at angle 89 o then its MASS must INCREASE. If this angle is 0 then
Einstein’s derivation implies that when Light Energy is emitted ,
mass decreases.
Sharma June 2004 paper is available
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For further elaborated discussion link is
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Thus Einstein’s derivation is not true in general, it holds good
under special conditions only.
I have given 2nd and 3rd example purposely that up to which extent
Einstein’s derivation depends upon angle. Angle up to 90 o is OK in
Einstein’s derivation of Sep 1905. If it slightly decreases (even
89.9 o ) then, then RESULTS ARE CONTRADICTORY to results.
Section B
It is crystal clear that as Einstein’s derivation as applicable to
first example ( two waves of equal energy L/2 each , emitted in
opposite directions w.r.t measuring system) and second example ( a
single wave of energy L emitted at 89 o or 89.5 o w.r.t measuring
system ).Thus Einstein’s derivation is also applicable to third
example (a single wave of energy L emitted at 89 o or 89.5 o w.r.t
measuring system).
As results are inconsistent then it is due to LIMITATIONS of
Einstein’s derivation only, as it is equally applicable in all the
three cases.
It is explained below that
law of ‘conservation of momentum’ holds good and ‘conditions of
applicability’ of Einstein’s derivation are applicable to ALL THREE
CASES.
Part I
(a) Law of conservation of momentum is obeyed completely.
Conservation of momentum is meant for isolated system and
mathematically implies that
Initial Momentum = Final Momentum (3)
mu=mv
As mass remains same in classical mechanics.
So u=v
which is Newton’s First law of motion
It is used to calculate the velocity of recoil of body after emission
of energy in any way.
--It is applicable if body moves or remains at rest after emitting
energy.
Einstein has done the case when body remain at rest ONLY, I have
extended to it even if MOVES.
Take example of
-----Shot fired from gun, gun moves backward.
------ Light bullet fired from TOY Gun, system remains at rest.
Momentum is conserved in ALL THREE CASES and velocity of recoil is more
or less can be calculated using Law of conservation of momentum. This
is the use of law of conservation of linear momentum in this case.
As Einstein did all CALCULATION UNDER CLASSICAL CONDITIONS, hence net
REALTIVE velocity of body after recoil must be in classical region.
Again as Einstein did calculation under CLASSICAL CONDITIONS then
momentum variation has no effect on MASS.
Part II
Einstein’s derivation is applicable when body remains at REST or
MOVES.
The basis for this TRUTH lies in Einstein’s derivation. Purposely and
Especially eq.(1) shown below which is applicable for one or n waves.
(i) The central equation in Einstein‘s equation is
l* = l{1 – v/c cos φ } /√[1 – v2 /c2] (1) at page
196 of the paper.
This equation is from Einstein’s June 1905 paper AND Einstein used it
in derivation of L =mc2.
With this equation magnitude of light energy is measured when one there
is relative velocity between light emitting body and measuring system.
Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
(body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
measuring system) .
Let body moves with velocity v’, then relative velocity will be
v+v’ and eq.(1) becomes
l* = l{1 – (v+v’) /c cos φ } /√[1 – (v+v’)2 /c2] (4)
So after emission of light energy, body remains at REST or MOVES,
eq.(1) [ at page 196 of paper ] is applicable.
When ever under any condition, body emits light energy, EINSTEIN’S
Sep. 1905 must give that MASS MUST DECREASE.
Thus out of three cases first one (two waves) , second one (for one
wave) interpretation for Einstein derivation is correct. How it
becomes incorrect for third case (one wave, with angle difference of 1
or less) becomes incorrect.
It is limitation of Einstein’s derivation.
Thus Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation is correct UNDER SPECIAL
CONDITIONS not in GENERAL.
Explanation for eq.(16) in paper at page 202.
Consider two waves of energy 0.5001L
and 0.4999L , then apply law of conservation of momentum the velocity
of RECOIL can be calculated as
Vr = 1/10000000000000000000000000000000 = 10-^32 m/s.
Now v+v’ = v +10-^32
So eq.(1) is valid whether body is at REST or MOVES after emission
of light energy.
Einstein’s derivation of L =mc2, the body may remain at REST or
MOVE, is applicable there is no rule of science which stops it.
Section 3
Part I
Thus it is concluded that Einstein’s derivation has four variables
(i) Number of light waves
(ii) Magnitude of energy of light waves
(iii) Angle at which light energy is emitted
(iv) Relative velocity v ( must be in classical region).
All these variables in Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation have numerous
values. Energy may be emitted in any way, the mass of BODY DECREASES
experimentally ALWAYS.
But THEORETICALLY according to Einstein’s 29 Sep. 1905
derivation, in every time, result is not eq.(1) .
L =mc2
Energy emitted = decrease in mass .c2 (1)
Einstein’s Sep. 1905 derivation also predicts MATHEMATICALLY that
when body emits Light Energy its mass must also INCREASE. It is not
true.
Hence Einstein’s derivation is true under special conditions only.
Part II
In addition after deriving
L= dmc2 (1)
Einstein simply replaced L and SPECULATED ( not derived)
E=dmc2
where E is EVERY FORM OF ENERGY ( light energy, heat energy, sound
energy, chemical energy in form invisible radiation etc.). However
basis for derivation of eq.(1) is only for light energy eq.(1) at page
196 of my paper.
Thus we need to derive mass energy equation by other method and
generalized equation is
dE =Ac2 dm
where A is coefficient of proportionality, like others in the existing
physics and its value depend upon experimental conditions.
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1. Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA
2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.
3. A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,
10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND
4. A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND
5. A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6. A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
Omar Gmail
But what the heck does this have to do with epistemology?
aaa
Omar Gmail wrote:
> Interesting.
> But what the heck does this have to do with epistemology?
>
>
There is no connection, Ajay Sharma has been spamming hundreds of
forums. Epistemology happens to be one of them. The paper is invalid ,
by the way.
physicsajay
====Ajay Sharma respond to NAME LESS, rambu...@yahoo.com , who was
earlier thrashed at WRAP REALTIVITY FORUM when he BOASTFULLY disclosed
himself as Dr In pain of CERN ) , so by fear , he is Nameless ,
Placeless here). ======
Coward, rambu...@yahoo.com
Shame on you, NAME LESS.
What is your name?
What is your father's name?
Where do you work?.
Have you any identity?
This world is published in international journals AFTER PEER REVIEW.
Who cares for such COWARD like you , who even cannot put the name with
post.
Part I
You were thrashed as Dr Inpain of CERN at Wrap forum.
(There you introduced yourself as Dr In pain of CERN)
Then you became NAMELESS.
You could not post your name, YOUR FATHER’S Name at GOOGLE, the where
you work?
You stopped posting at GOOGLE and Wrap..
At Physics Banter also you are nameless?
Part II
I taught you 11TH CLASS PHYSICS, APPLICATION OF Conservation Of
Momentum.
Now you don’t do this mistake.
Now you are applying law of conservation of Energy incorrectly in
Einstein’s paper.
More then 100 times I told you, put value of phi 89 in your eq.(1.5) ,
you will get
the same result as I have got.
God Bless you, COWARD Nameless, Placeless, Identity less.
Omar Gmail
Your replies to him are same level spam when it comes to epistemology.
omar
Souvik
> (iii) If we consider the same body , it emits light energy at angle
> 90 o w.r.t to the moving system , then again Einstein’s derivation
> gives
>
> Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89 o)
> Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c)
> Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
> Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13) at
> page 201 of paper
You didn't follow Einstein's paper. He considers light waves
transmitting energy in opposite directions, with an angle phi between
the first one and the x-axis. He calculates the energy difference
between the final and initial state in this rest frame and an inertial
frame moving along the x-direction at speed v. He finds that the
difference does not contain the angle phi: L*(1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 - 1),
but does contain the velocity as shown. So what are you harping about?
> Initial Momentum = Final Momentum (3)
> mu=mv
> As mass remains same in classical mechanics.
> So u=v
> which is Newton’s First law of motion
This does not apply in electrodynamic radiation, which is what Einstein
is considering. Naive Newtonian expressions like p=mv don't hold for
radiation.
> As Einstein did all CALCULATION UNDER CLASSICAL CONDITIONS, hence net
> REALTIVE velocity of body after recoil must be in classical region.
> Again as Einstein did calculation under CLASSICAL CONDITIONS then
> momentum variation has no effect on MASS.
What do you mean Einstein did calculations under classical conditions?
Electrodynamic radiation is not described by classical mechanics, and
he is considering radiation.
> Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
> (body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
> measuring system) .
> Let body moves with velocity v’, then relative velocity will be
> v+v’ and eq.(1) becomes
Wrong. The relative velocity is v+v'/(1-v.v'/c^2) where v and v' are
vectors and that's a dot product in the denominator. In the limit
v,v'<<c, it becomes v+v'. Try high school again, dude.
I don't have the time or enthusiasm to go picking through your pile of
trash, but with the examples of misunderstanding I pointed out, so much
for your "peer reviewed" paper! I can only imagine the physics
education of your peers.
Get a life. Stop spamming the group. Learn some physics, sign up for an
undergrad course in relativity and get the basics right before you
start claiming breakthroughs with your half-baked understanding of
physics. And please do us a favour and stop spamming the epistemology
group.
-S
AJAY SHARMA
--------Ajay Sharma responds to Souvik--------------------
Half baked comments flooded with misunderstanding
Part I
You did not understand the concept fully. It PEER REVIEWED for about
one and half year at Physics Essays. I have spent years on it,
Understand that, Einstein derived L=mc2 under special conditions.
(a) Body emits two light wave
(ii) Both waves are of equal magnitude
(iii Both the waves are emitted in opposite directions
(iv) Velocity is in classical region ( OF TWO FRAMES)
OVERALL CONDITION: Body remains at rest.
CONCLUSION: Body emits light energy, mass decreases. It is correct.
But law of inter conversion of mass energy holds good in all cases.
My approach
Let us generalize the derivation for all possible cases.
(i) BODY EMITS MANY LIGHT WAVES.
(ii) WAVES CAN BE OF DIFERENT MAGNITUDE OF ENERGY.
(iii) WAVES CAN BE EMITTED AT ANY DIRECTION
(vi) VELOCITY MAY BE IN CLASSICAL OR RELATIVITIC REGION
Overall conditions: Body may be REST or MOVES after emission of light
energy.
If Einstein’s derivation is generalized
CONCLUSION: Body emits light energy, Mass Increases . It is
incorrect.
Part II
Your personal misunderstandings.
(a) Einstein’s derivation is true is under Classical conditions( OF
TWO FRAMES).
Pick up any book on the topic , it is the conclusion.
In the derivation Sep 1905 Einstein applied Binomial Theorem (v<<c)
(ii) DUDE : WHAT ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT ….The relative velocity is
v+v'/(1-v.v'/c^2)
Just explain it. I have explained it fully in the post. Just Explain it
I post again
Einstein’s derivation is applicable when body remains at REST or
MOVES.
The basis for this TRUTH lies in Einstein’s derivation. Purposely and
Especially eq.(1) shown below which is applicable for one or n waves.
(i) The central equation in Einstein‘s equation is
l* = l{1 – v/c cos φ } /√[1 – v2 /c2] (1) at page
196 of the paper.
This equation is from Einstein’s June 1905 paper AND Einstein used it
in derivation of L =mc2.
With this equation magnitude of light energy is measured when one there
is relative velocity between light emitting body and measuring system.
Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
(body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
measuring system) .
Let body moves with velocity v’, then relative velocity will be
v+v’ and eq.(1) becomes
l* = l{1 – (v+v’) /c cos φ } /√[1 – (v+v’)2 /c2] (4)
So after emission of light energy, body remains at REST or MOVES,
eq.(1) [ at page 196 of paper ] is applicable.
When ever under any condition, body emits light energy, EINSTEIN’S
Sep. 1905 must give that MASS MUST DECREASE.
(ii) Law of Conservation of Momentum:
It is simply mentioned for understanding, as some dudes don’t
understand this { due to busy schedule } , as you are writing
….The relative velocity is v+v'/(1-v.v'/c^2)
In this regard correct equation (4) .
l* = l{1 – (v+v’) /c cos φ } /√[1 – (v+v’)2 /c2] (4)
(iii) Undergraduate Course: You need not take this course, as you can
understand the things if you read the paper, and posts.
I will recommend the same to you if you repeat the mistakes again and
again.
AJAY SHARMA
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
The past , present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published and is UNDER PUBLICATION in various others
Omar Gmail
AJAY SHARMA
Ajay Sharma responds to OMAR =====
I have reponded to Sauvik
If you want to get lot , do it. None is stopping you.
AJAY SHARMA
Souvik
> v+v'/(1-v.v'/c^2)
> Just explain it. I have explained it fully in the post. Just Explain it
> I post again
> Einstein's derivation is applicable when body remains at REST or
> MOVES.
> The basis for this TRUTH lies in Einstein's derivation. Purposely and
> Especially eq.(1) shown below which is applicable for one or n waves.
> (i) The central equation in Einstein's equation is
>
> 196 of the paper.
>
> This equation is from Einstein's June 1905 paper AND Einstein used it
> in derivation of L =mc2.
> With this equation magnitude of light energy is measured when one there
> is relative velocity between light emitting body and measuring system.
> Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
> (body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
> measuring system) .
> Let body moves with velocity v', then relative velocity will be
> v+v' and eq.(1) becomes
>
>
> So after emission of light energy, body remains at REST or MOVES,
> eq.(1) [ at page 196 of paper ] is applicable.
> When ever under any condition, body emits light energy, EINSTEIN'S
> Sep. 1905 must give that MASS MUST DECREASE.
>
> (ii) Law of Conservation of Momentum:
> It is simply mentioned for understanding, as some dudes don't
> understand this { due to busy schedule } , as you are writing
> In this regard correct equation (4) .
> (iii) Undergraduate Course: You need not take this course, as you can
> understand the things if you read the paper, and posts.
> I will recommend the same to you if you repeat the mistakes again and
> again.
>
> AJAY SHARMA
Firstly, I cannot read your post since it is garbled English. I do not
believe that someone who cannot write a coherent to-the-point post
could be making an important point, let alone relativity.
Secondly, it doesn't matter how long you spent on it, it doesn't make
any sense to me and I am a physicist by profession. The principles of
special relativity, electrodynamics etc are very familiar to me as I
use them every day at work. Of the little sense I can make of what
you're saying, I've noted some serious lack of physics knowledge in my
previous post. I did not understand your response to them. Maybe you
would like to point us directly to your article in Physics Essays
instead of saying it was published there.
Thirdly, try Physical Review if you are looking for serious peer review
or recognition. Spamming irrelevant groups with get you neither.
Fourthly, get a life. Several people have expressed their opinions
against you, not just your crackpot theories, in this group. Please
leave. Try posting in sci.physics.research where it will be more
relevant.
-Souvik
physicsajay
----Ajay Sharma reponds tO SOUVIK------
Firtly you see the misunderstandings about the paper you have.
As this work is published in international journals ,if
incorrect one can publish its correct version in the journals. IT IS
ALSO OPEN TO YOU.
Just try to article for journals , clearly stating what is
Einstein's Sep 1905 paper . What is Ajay Sharma's version? How it is
incomplete ?
You get everything.
No body cares , what is written about IN UNMODERATED INTERNET GROUP.
What you cannot at one's face , can be said easily said on UNMODERATED
INTERNET GROUP. It gives opportunity for interaction.
I will wait for your paper in journal about my work. Untill then Bye.
AJAY SHARMA
Sam Carana
Ajay, three points I want to make:
1. Firstly, this is not an unmoderated group. New members are moderated
and will only be switched to unmoderated if they prove to abide by the
terms that are set by Google for all groups like this one and if
messages are sufficiently relevant to epistemology and within the theme
of the thread. Members who offend against these terms can and have been
switched back to moderated and some have indeed claimed that some of
their messages were not allowed into the group at all.
2. Having set the record straight on that issue, the next logical
question is, what is the epistemological issue that you want to
address?
All you seem to have done is to add the letter A to indicate
variability, but that doesn't add any other argument than the mere
suggestion or wish that there was variability. Epistemologically, you
have said nothing, other than to express your faith in variability
itself, in which case I would suggest to put your faith in diversity
instead.
Epistemologically, it would help your case if you added argument,
preferably in terms that are easy to understand for all members. Here's
an example. Imagine the following conundrum: if two beams of light go
in opposite directions, one of them seems to move away from the other
at a speed that - from a specific perspective - appears to be twice the
speed of light. The question is from what perspective can such an
observation be made, if at all?
Indeed, for us to measure whether the speed of light was indeed
constant, we would need something that remained constant over time to
compare things against. The problem is that if there is no other
constant than light itself (in order to compare the speed of light
againts), then such a constant speed of light remains based on
speculation and circular logic. That is an epistemological reflection
and this was discussed here earlier at:
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_frm/thread/2a8d51ac51b6c49a
3. As a final and more disturbing point, I noted that your writings do
not appear to be freely available. At Physics Essays, it says that your
article is for sale for $4 (The Origin of the Generalized Mass-Energy
Equation ∆E = Ac2∆M and Its Applications in General Physics and
Cosmology/195 Ajay Sharma), at:
http://www.physicsessays.com/catalog.asp?code=1702
Having hereby given you the courtesy of repeating the above details of
your article, I do suggest that if you do want to discuss the content
of that article here, then either provide a link to a page where the
full article is available, or post an adequate abstract here, so it can
be discussed here. Merely promoting upcoming books or texts that are
not freely available can only be considered to be spam, especially if
multiple messages appear with references and links to it.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
georges
Sam Carana wrote:
................
................
> Epistemologically, it would help your case if you added argument,
> preferably in terms that are easy to understand for all members. Here's
> an example. Imagine the following conundrum: if two beams of light go
> in opposite directions, one of them seems to move away from the other
> at a speed that - from a specific perspective - appears to be twice the
> speed of light. The question is from what perspective can such an
> observation be made, if at all?
G:
Let source referential "s" send two photonis
left and right, respectively associated with
referentials "l" and "r".
Speed Vlr of the right photon with respect to left
will be the cumulation of Vls - speed of s
with respect to l and Vsr - speed of r with
respect to s.
Speed cumulation is given by:
Vlr=(Vls + Vsr)/(1+VlsVsr/c^2)
Substituing Vls=Vsr=c we get:
Vlr=(c+c)/(1+c*c/c^2)=2c/2=c
l sees r moving at c.
IMO it's not worth while to play too much with calling in question the
relativistic Model with help of "common sence" quizes defined in
Euclidean Naive View. What seems to me important is to consider
the epistemological and ontological impact of "c+c=c" and, more
generally
of the pseudo-rotational transformation in the METRIC LightTime-Space
#Space and, above all of the concept of P-Equivalence with such
instances
as #Space/Field, Gravity/Inertia, Wave/Particle etc. (see
http://findgeorges.com/)
==================================================
> Indeed, for us to measure whether the speed of light was indeed
> constant, we would need something that remained constant over time to
> compare things against. The problem is that if there is no other
> constant than light itself (in order to compare the speed of light
> againts), then such a constant speed of light remains based on
> speculation and circular logic.
==================================================
G:
c is not constant, but INVARIANT. Classic Logic may appear circular or
whatever, in fact it's inadequate and has to be replaced by new Reason,
the Relativistic Dialectic founded in the new Ontology and Epistemology
of the Second Enlightenment (again: http://findgeorges.com/).
==================================================
Cheers
Georges.
Sam Carana
Hi George!
Perhaps the speed of light only appears to be invariant due to the way
it's measured, i.e. measuring by taking a single point of view. The
very act of making measurements presumes there was some standard to
measure things against. How do we know whether it's reality or whether
it is the act of taking a single viewpoint that is responsible for
observed invariance? In other words, taking a wider perspective, there
may be more diversity. Sure, common sense may seem naive from a certain
points of view, but in the end, we have to communicate in one way or
another, otherwise even a highly sophisticated view may get lost
because nobody hears from it. Also, wasn't Einstein rather naive to
reject quantum theory so fundamentally?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
physicsajay
I agree with you except point 3
Well publisher sells article for US $ 4.
But it is also freely avaialable.
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
And Einstein's apper is available at
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Thanks.
AJAY SHARMA
CSAA
> ----------------Ajay Sharma responds to Sam---------
> I agree with you except point 3
> Well publisher sells article for US $ 4.
> But it is also freely avaialable.
> My work is available at
>
> A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
> ”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
> its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
>
> http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
>
> And Einstein's apper is available at
>
> References of Einstein’s work
> .
> A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
> . DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
> UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
> Weblink is
> Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> Thanks.
> AJAY SHARMA
Dear Ajay
Instead of launching into personal attacks, you should note that:
1. "Souvek" showed you some of your mistakes in interpreting the 1905
paper by Einstei. He also showed that you do not understand radiation
treatment in modern physics
2. "aaa" took the trouble to thoroughly refute your paper:
http://gase1234.tripod.com/ASharma.pdf
3. I must observe that by introducing a "theta" dependent term in your
"mass variation" you get a pretty absurd condition, i.e. in your
theory, the mass variation depends on the angle of the radiated light.
Sorry, but this is physically impossible.
physicsajay
------------------
As far as you talk about rambu...@yahoo.com
this post supports my conclusions, you simply put phi 89 and you get
the same numerica value as I have got.
I have asked him to do so 100 times. I have done paste below my
previous post dated 24Sep 2006.
Part II
Solve your equations (putting value of angle 89), in terms of
difference in mass.
You reach at EQ.(13) in my paper
∆m = -LcosΦ/cv + L/c2 =
Or Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (cos Φ =Cos89)
(13)
Both the terms follow cohesively from law of conservation of energy as
taken in account by Einstein. These are correctly taken in account. (
understand meaning of Ki , Hi and Ei).
Put value of angle 89 degree in eq.(1.6).
It will end all this.
You have NO right ABUSE other’s work for your OWN limitations.
AJAY SHARMA 24 Sep 2005.
---about Souvek
It is nor clear to me HE HAS READ EINSTEIN'S Sep 1905 paper ot not.
I have asked him to let me know how my e.(4)
Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
(body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
measuring system) .
Let body moves with velocity v’, then relative velocity will be
v+v’ and eq.(1) becomes [ here v' is velocity of recoil of body and
v is velocity of moving frame, THESE ARE NOT VELOCITIES OF WAVES. So
simple law of relative velocity will apply.}
l* = l{1 – (v+v’) /c cos φ } /√[1 – (v+v’)2 /c2] (4)
is incorrect. But he he did not. So it is not my fault. I have only
conclude d that he discussing about relativive velocity. EINSTEIN DID
CALCUALTIONS under classical conditions.
If you have different opinion let me know.
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
AJAY SHARMA
Souvik
> ---about Souvek
> It is nor clear to me HE HAS READ EINSTEIN'S Sep 1905 paper ot not.
> I have asked him to let me know how my e.(4)
> Einstein considered two frames i.e. (x,y,z) at rest
> (body placed in it) and second frame (X,Y,Z) moving with velocity v (
> measuring system) .
> Let body moves with velocity v', then relative velocity will be
> v+v' and eq.(1) becomes [ here v' is velocity of recoil of body and
> v is velocity of moving frame, THESE ARE NOT VELOCITIES OF WAVES. So
> simple law of relative velocity will apply.}
Yes, I've read Einstein's paper. You don't seem to have understood his
thought experiment in the first place. In the first frame, the body is
NOT moving. That is why it is called the rest frame. In that rest
frame, it emits light in two opposite directions. Then he observes the
same emission from another reference frame that is moving at velocity V
w.r.t. to the rest frame at an angle phi to one of the light wave
directions. So there's only one velocity V involved.
You consider the body to be moving with velocity v' in the first frame.
Why? That is an unnecessary complication to the thought experiment, but
if you work things out, you'll reach the same conclusion. I'm surprised
that you've never seen the formula for the relativistic addition of
velocities: v+v'/(1-v.v'/c^2) and somehow think it is for waves only.
It is generally true and can be derived straight from the Lorentz
transformation equations. Leads me to believe you have less than an
undergraduate exposure to relativity. In my opinion, you make an
excellent example of "An empty vessel makes the loudest noise".
AJAY SHARMA
As I am discussing Einstein's Sep 1905 paper. So I am using the formula
used by him.
There is no problem with this , if body moves , the relative velocites
can be calculated in CLASSICAL REGION.
DO you think it it wrong ?
If so then how and why ?
My version is completely explained in
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
=====about your formula=======
I am not aware of it.
Could you please to let know about
v+v' (1-v.v'/c2)
where is published , name of journal.
How it is derived? What are conditions of derivations.
what is meaning of v and v' ,
AJAY SHARMA
Souvik
> Souvik,
>
> As I am discussing Einstein's Sep 1905 paper. So I am using the formula
> used by him.
But you don't understand the picture he is describing. Why does the
body in the rest frame have a velocity? Where does Einstein mention
that in his paper?
> There is no problem with this , if body moves , the relative velocites
> can be calculated in CLASSICAL REGION.
> DO you think it it wrong ?
> If so then how and why ?
> =====about your formula=======
> I am not aware of it.
> Could you please to let know about
> v+v' (1-v.v'/c2)
> where is published , name of journal.
Holy crap! This is embarrassing. This is something you can find in any
textbook of classical mechanics like Goldstein or even Kleppner and
Kolenkow. You don't expect someone to tell you which journal F=ma is
published in, do you? It's as basic as that. Just google for
"relativistic addition of velocities"... here's the first link that
showed up:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Read it... or just pick up a high-school or undergrad level textbook on
relativity.
> How it is derived? What are conditions of derivations.
> what is meaning of v and v' ,
You'll find the derivation in the link I gave you. I got the minus sign
in the denominator wrong, btw and you didn't even barf at the
impossibility. A simple way to derive it would be to add rapidities. If
you're not familiar with the concept of rapidity, you can look at the
differential form of the Lorentz transformations and calculate how the
velocity of an object transforms as one shifts reference frames. v and
v' are the two velocities you're trying to add. Einstein's derivation
doesn't depend on this formula -- you misunderstood the picture where
you needed to be careful in finding relative velocities; and GOT THAT
WRONG!
georges
Souvik wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > Souvik,
> >
> > As I am discussing Einstein's Sep 1905 paper.
Souvik,
You seem to be a competent person and why you bother
to discuss Mr. Sharma's writings is more than I can say.
First, Mr. Sharma does not seem to know what he is talking
about else than marketing his book and does it in unusually
vulgar and unpleasant style.
Second, Einstein's Sep 1905 paper has no value other than
historic. Einstein himself considered it intuitive and immature
and advised us not to read it. At his suggestion, as an exercise,
I tried to derive e=mc^2 and arrived at a version which he
corrected in one or two places.
I presented the 50 years old recollection of this exercise
in "e=mc2 and epistemo" hoping to get critical comments.
Not being God (I have official certificates of a Priest, a Rabbi
and an Ayatollah) I often err and appreciate corrections.
For some reason nobody seems to have noticed my exercise
and I stay where I was, alone with my doubts.
Maybe you could help me.
The central assumption of my exercise is the unification of
Maxwell equations in tensors Q and J. I don't see any other
way of creating a 4-Vector with speed components of a
"material" point analogical with the 4-Vector of E-M
Field. And I don't see any way of deriving e=mc^2 else than
by this analogy.
Am I right? Or, if wrong, than how and where?
Cheers
Georges.
AJAY SHARMA
------------
Let Sauvik explain.
If your are writing on his behalf , then read followings.
References.
References of Einstein’s work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
PartII
References of Ajay Sharma’s work
My work is available at
A. Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
”The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology”.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=mc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=mc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
AJAY SHRAMA
Souvik
> Maxwell equations in tensors Q and J. I don't see any other
> way of creating a 4-Vector with speed components of a
> "material" point analogical with the 4-Vector of E-M
> Field. And I don't see any way of deriving e=mc^2 else than
> by this analogy.
> Am I right? Or, if wrong, than how and where?
I found it hard, to say the least, to go through your post. So I just
tried to skim it for your ideas, instead of figuring out what the
equations in ASCII meant. I am not sure why you think the time-like
component of the electromagnetic field carries energy. You cannot make
that direct analogy with the four vector of energy-momentum. The way to
think about it is: energy-momentum constitute a four vector;
differential time-differential space constitute a four vector of
displacement in spacetime; the scalar and vector potentials of
electromagnetism together constitute a four vector (that describes
electromagnetism) BECAUSE all of the above transform by Lorentz
transformations. (The inner products are invariant under Lorentz
transformations etc.)
The four vector for the electromagnetic field consists of just (scalar
field, 3 vector fields) where
Electric field = -div(scalar field) -d(vector field)/dt
Magnetic field = curl(vector field).
I am not sure what you mean by tensors Q and J. Q is traditionally the
scalar charge density. J is a 3-vector current density. Together, they
do transform as a four vector (Q,J). It is easy to write Maxwell's
equation in one line using this four-vector current and the four-vector
electromagnetic field.
Omar Gmail
Cheers!
Sam Carana
[>> omar>>] A most appreciable diplomatic but firm way of dealing with this energumen Sam.