0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Everyday measurements suggest that E = mc^2 to +/- 1 part in 10^10. If you have a better measurement that suggests otherwise, please tell us.

Was Einstein wrong about E=MC2 ?...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

As far as the OP is concerned, I believe the equation can be derived without Relativity, based on the observation that photons do not have mass, but they do possess momentum. I'm sure you could Google it.

On March 25th, 1934, in Corning, New York, the largest disk, made of a special glass containing borax (borosilicate glass), was poured. It was 16.6 feet across, and referred to as the 200 inch disk. It was 26 inches thick, and weighed 20 tons. Its ultimate destination, when ground, polished and coated with a layer of bright aluminum, was the Hale Telescope on Mt. Palomar in north San Diego County, California.During the manufacture, the furnace was so hot that several cores in the brick mold broke away from the metal anchor rods and floated on top of the molten glass. Though the accident meant that the disk would never be used as the great mirror, it wasn't considered a complete failure. It was used to test the annealing process for the pouring of the second disk, and for experimenting with packing and crating methods to be chosen for shipping it to California.

[The glass] was to be perfectly flat. However during the heating phase, it was heated unevenly and it became parabolic.

Quote from: alancalverd on 17/09/2016 10:31:21Everyday measurements suggest that E = mc^2 to +/- 1 part in 10^10. If you have a better measurement that suggests otherwise, please tell us. With all the questions concerning Einstein's credibility I decided to reread his "Relativity". I thought I would have to buy a copy on Amazon but it was right there on the internet. So I downloaded it on adobe and started to read it. It was stated that Einstein never gave Lorenz credit but he has an entire Chapter on Lorenz transformations. This forum has given me the opportunity to see explanations of his theory from many different viewpoints. It is always confusing to me whether time is contracting or expanding or length is contracting or expanding depending upon where you are. I now realize that my lengths in my books has been presented contrary to Einstein. So I have to reread his book to understand what his thoughts were. In addition his time clocks confused me but if we look at a moving clock relative to us we find that the time waves to the front appear compressed and the time waves to the read look elongated while the geometric mean of the waves equals Einsteins. Thus it looks to us like within the moving clock the ticks are faster. However Einstein would say that within the moving clock it does not know that it is moving. Thus the time ticks of the moving clock never changed. Thus to us since we appear faster, in Einsteinian reality, the moving clock is slower. In some respects this appears unbelievable that the moving clock keeps ticking at the same rate (geometric mean) but experiments have proven Einstein to be correct. As far as E=MCC is concerned, two massless photons produce particles and antiparticles which have mass therefore mass is energy bottled up. To me mass is spherical energy whereas photons are planar energy. Again Einsteins equation proves to be true. Anyway I read Einsteins book in 1981 and now will reread it now that I am aware of all the experimental data which is readily available on the internet.

The opening question was "was Einstein wrong about E = mc^2" to which the experimental answer, quite clearly, is "no", as pointed out in Reply #1, and on your electricity bill. What more do you want?

I am enjoying reading the 1920 version of Einstein’s Relativity translated by Jose Menendez which I got on the Internet although I read this book quickly in 1981 as I was trying to find the lowest quanta of energy and charge in the universe upon which everything is built. I have always looked for alternate possibilities as to the correctness of Einstein. This forum has been extremely helpful in helping to convince me that Einstein was correct in his work. Now I will have to incorporate his relativity into the next updated version of my book which I shall start retyping shortly. And after I get the new copyright I will discuss this in new theories in a few months. On Page 53 of his book he statesE = mc^2 + m[V^2]/2 + (3/8)m [V^4]/ [C^2] + ................. For V is small the rest energy is ,MC^2. He recognizes that we are dealing with a complex Fourier series. To be sure this work originated with Lorenz as he stated. I have said that the work of Einstein is the best fit approximation to space and time. But this is self evident in the equations of Einstein and the work of Lorenz and the experiment of Fizeau and others. Thus the work of Einstein was not his alone but a combined effort of many scientists. Einstein put it all together in his book. In general the work of many specifies that the laws of gravity are basically identical with the laws of electromagnetism. We change the words such that the gravitational constant and the magnetic constant are interchanged and everything works accordingly. So the question is not whether Einstein was wrong but whether all of them were wrong? At this second reading of Einstein’s book it is becoming clear to me that they were all correct.

Then, you will obviously enjoy knowing that Einstein's ideas have been refuted by recent evidence that the sun doesn't bend star light beyond the sun's atmosphere. lol!

Quote from: Atkhenaken on 23/09/2016 03:33:46Then, you will obviously enjoy knowing that Einstein's ideas have been refuted by recent evidence that the sun doesn't bend star light beyond the sun's atmosphere. lol!Which is all the more remarkable for the facts that (a) gravitational bending wasn't Einstein's idea (Newton proposed it 200 years earlier) and (b) every other celestial body does it and (c) there is no true upper limit to the sun's atmosphere. Einstein's contribution was to correct the calculated value to what turned out to be the experimental value (twice the Newtonian value).Your explanation of the relevance and credibility of your statement is awaited.

Being a scientist, I prefer numbers to rhetoric. Your political prejudices and amateur psychology are irrelevant: please show your calculations.

If you look at the equation E=MC2, rest mass M is an invariant, the speed of the light C is the same in all references, yet observed energy is variable and reference dependent. How can the product of two invariants become variant?

Scarecely relevant, but who cares? The mathematics of relativity is simple enough but I dare you to derive a maximum-entropy MRI reconstruction algorithm on the KISS principle. Not sure about drooling but I have people queuing in the street to use mine!

QuoteOn March 25th, 1934, in Corning, New York, the largest disk, made of a special glass containing borax (borosilicate glass), was poured. It was 16.6 feet across, and referred to as the 200 inch disk. It was 26 inches thick, and weighed 20 tons. Its ultimate destination, when ground, polished and coated with a layer of bright aluminum, was the Hale Telescope on Mt. Palomar in north San Diego County, California.During the manufacture, the furnace was so hot that several cores in the brick mold broke away from the metal anchor rods and floated on top of the molten glass. Though the accident meant that the disk would never be used as the great mirror, it wasn't considered a complete failure. It was used to test the annealing process for the pouring of the second disk, and for experimenting with packing and crating methods to be chosen for shipping it to California. But your version is much more fun.

Years ago there were MRI systems that did not have the giant magnets, they used radio waves basically. And there was almost no danger from them. So perhaps KISS could be reapplied to the newer machines. Sincerely, William McCormick

Quote from: William McC on 28/09/2016 01:11:59Years ago there were MRI systems that did not have the giant magnets, they used radio waves basically. And there was almost no danger from them. So perhaps KISS could be reapplied to the newer machines. Sincerely, William McCormickThe first published MRI image of a human was made in a superconducting 0.1 T magnet (I used to work for the inventor, and I met the patient). There were some systems that used the earth's magnetic field as a polariser but they were never more than curiosities. You need at least 0.2 T to get enough signal/noise ratio to produce a useful image before the patient dies of boredom. All MRI systems use RF energy.And they all use reiterative 3D inverse-space reconstruction algorithms to produce the image because that's the only way you can do it. Whilst the algorithms themselves are fun, proving that a new algorithm is indefinitely stable and uniquely convergent is a mathematical orgasm, way beyond a mere KISS.

It takes 1014 joules of mass just to weigh a single gram