[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Was Einstein wrong about E=MC2 ?

http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Was Atkhenaken wrong?

Yes
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68196.0
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68174.0

[jerrygg38]

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.

   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.

[jerrygg38]

Was Einstein wrong about E=MC2 ?

http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

   The question of whether Einstein was right or wrong in whatever he did, should really be why was Einstein right. In Engineering school especially in courses of Magnetics or radar Antennas they teach describing functions. A square wave could become a single fundamental wave and the Fourier series eliminated.
  Is Einstein absolutely correct or has Einstein produced the best fit describing functions in his work? If he has the best fit describing functions, the test results will be the best possible answers. Einstein has excellent answers. Thus he has the best fit describing functions.
  Does the universe actually work the way Einstein suggests? Probably not. The details of space are missing. What is in space? We know that gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields exist in space. What are they composed of? How do they work? What happens in space if the gravitational field is basically zero. Can anything survive a zero gravitational field?
   The ideal describing functions of Einstein do not give us a complete understanding of the universe. The scientists say his work matches the data nearly perfectly. Thus his math is excellent but it lacks a good understanding of what is happening within the gravitational field itself. Yet his work is a good start in the quest for the true answers. Thus there is a lot of work to be done by future scientists, engineers, and mathematicians so that future man will truly understand this universe.

[Semaphore]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

   There are other derivations for sure. I am rereading his relativity now but at present I do not think relativity had anything to do with it. He won the Noble prize for his work on photons and not relativity. To me relativity is a mathematical viewpoint of the universe. Good answers but the actual details of what happens is missing. I don't want equations. I want to understand the nuts and bolts of how things work and relativity does not answer that.

[William McC]

Real life accidents always highlight that all this crazy talk about matter being the energy is just plain crazy once you have been faced with the rather horrific accident scenes. Some were created while building weapons of mass destruction for the military, others just factory accidents. Often whole towns are suppressed and basically threatened with poverty to shut up about the accidents.

With all the history about war, we have such conflicting stories about Lewisite gas. And Senator Nathan Bay Scott. It was known to me as blue cross gas, an arsenic based poison gas that carries a lethal dose of arsenic into the body through respiratory, stomach, or skin. Some say he survived others say he would have died no matter what they did for him.

One such accident that kind of sheds some light on matter being a filter, rather than a source of energy was the concave accident in a block long kiln at the Corning ware factory. A military lens a very large, thick military lens, about eight feet in height and over a foot thick was being fired in the kiln. It was to be perfectly flat. However during the heating phase, it was heated unevenly and it became parabolic. As soon as it did, it emitted a powerful beam that destroyed the kiln and disintegrated anything in its path. Science basically said something else must have happened, but the kiln master who watched it, knows better. And so did the rest of the plant workers. Almost all that are familiar with the crazy weapons and prototypes at aerospace plants understand the parabolic effect. But that example of changing the shape of an object and substance in an environment that safely dealt with those materials for many years, and then suddenly created a death ray is a way to look at structure. With no additional energy applied to the object. Which means that the shape of the object filtered and altered the radiation that was passing through the lens into a death ray.

I can understand how you could make an argument that the parabolic shape caused, a concentration of the existing heat and light. However I cannot tie the matter to the death ray energy created. Add that thinner glass did not cause this effect and I believe we have to look at the filter effect.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[alancalverd]

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.

But your version is much more fun.

[evan_au]

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

Early telescope mirrors were cast as a flat disk, with some blocks in the back that are removed later to make the mirror lighter.

However, it takes a very long time to grind away the flat disk to make the desired parabolic shape for the the final mirror.

Modern large telescope mirrors are allowed to cool slowly in a rotating furnace. The balance of gravity and centrifugal force naturally forms mirrors with a parabolic surface which require minimal grinding to form the final mirror shape. But these modern parabolic glass disks did not destroy the kiln, and have been successfully installed as operational telescopes (where they did not destroy the telescope dome).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_casting_(mirrors)

Almost all that are familiar with the crazy weapons and prototypes at aerospace plants understand the parabolic effect.

In 1970, one crazed man went berserk, using a 9mm pistol and hammer as weapons in an attempt to destroy the primary parabolic mirror of the McDonald telescope.

The sheriff's report indicated that the man had blown a big hole in the center of the mirror; the sheriff was not aware that most large telescope mirrors have a hole cut in the center to mount equipment behind the mirror. In fact, the bullets left 6 small dimples in the mirror, reducing it's light-collecting power by less than 1%

See: https://astroanecdotes.com/2015/03/26/the-mcdonald-gun-shooting-incident/

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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.

   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.

You haven't addressed the issues raised in my opening statement.

[alancalverd]

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?

[jerrygg38]

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 states
E = 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.
   

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

       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 states
E = 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!

[alancalverd]

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!

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.

[jerrygg38]

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!

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.

   What is confusing to me is that Einstein says the light will be attracted to the sun with twice the Newtonian value due to the curvature of space as well as the gravitational force. Yet he states that the star will appear at a somewhat greater position from the sun than what corresponds to its actual position. Can you explain this is different words because my normal thought process thinks it should look closer to the sun?

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

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!

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.

Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun’s light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being “bent” around the sun.

Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe, Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud—an attempt by a “charlatan” to fool anthropologists into thinking they had found the “missing” link—as the greatest hoax of twentieth and twenty-first century science.


Hero worship may seem harmless to some, but in the case of Einstein it has had disastrous consequences for the scientific community. Let us start with perhaps the worst cover-up and brewing scandal science has seen in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. I am referring to the Hoax of 1919, otherwise known as the eclipse data from 1919, hereinafter called the “Eclipse.” Einstein’s dubious science led other scientists to disgrace themselves for the express purpose of proving Einstein right about general relativity. It is almost unimaginable to ponder just how bad “reputable” scientists are when it comes to understanding the limitations of scientific instruments, the limits of the physical conditions under which data is collected, and a complete lack of understanding of the logic behind the various predictions for the deflection of light. These scientists don’t appear to understand what the scientific method is or how to apply it.

Strong models are like crude filters, readily admitting data consistent with the theory and systematically rejecting data inconsistent with the theory. This results in a feedback loop between the corrupted and derogated data to the strong model. They reinforce each other. This has been the case for general relativity. It went from an obscure concept from a somewhat obscure scientist, to the reigning paradigm overnight, dominating thinking in theoretical physics over the past half century. “Strong models corrupt weak men and women. . .The desire to conform, is almost as strong as the desire to create.”1 Strong models discourage free and independent thought. Where wealth, power and prestige come into play, they serve as a club to beat back promising alternatives. General relativity is just such a model.

I have previously drawn the analogy between strong models and the queen bee syndrome.1 What is the first official act of any queen bee when she recognizes what she is? To immediately kill off any potential rivals. This is how strong models operate. Consider this observation from Ian McCausland: “In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact. . .It is suggested that the announcement of the eclipse observations in 1919 was not a triumph of science as it is often portrayed, but rather an obstacle to objective consideration of alternatives.”2 According to the late Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature,3 the results from the Eclipse were not particularly accurate and the subsequent eclipse observations are no better. . .

The proving method on the theory on general relativity as requested by its founder, Albert Einstein, is not scientific and deeply wrong:
1.Deflection of light is the different angle between true position and apparent position of stars or the different of altitude. In astronomy, true position and apparent position of stars are three dimensionals.
All the photographs be taken of the stars are two dimensionals.
In this case Einstein ignored ‘The Space and Time’ or Celestial Sphere (Celestial Coordinate System), and ignored light refraction as the fundamental concepts in astronomy.
2.All the photographs be taken of solar eclipse ( the Sun and stars ) are photographs of the apparent positions of the Sun and stars. From these photos can not be use to calculate the deflection of light. No one can determine the correct angle of the deflection of light.
In this case Einstein ignored the experimental techniques
3.In astronomy, all calculations to determine the true position and the apparent position of a certain star at the sky is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed.
To compared the photographs taken during an eclipse with photographs of those same stars made at another time is not scientific.

 

[alancalverd]

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

[William McC]

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

Most things in real life today can barely be measured. They are usually misunderstood on a basic level and yet someone cries out show me the numbers. If we knew what it was, how big or how much it weighs, how fast it is really going, or if we are actually seeing what we want to measure, then we could perform the grade school math to precisely pin it down with numbers.

Until then there is no need for the math.

The math needed to build or classify anything is never complex. In fact if it is, I can assure you, you will not be building anything great. KISS (Keep, It, Simple, Stupid) makes the products that individuals drool over.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[alancalverd]

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!