Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Subject: E= mc2 extended to ΔE=Ac2 Δm after 100 Years (paper published in peer review journal, abstracted in CURRENT CONTENTS)
Since student of BSc II (1982) I was interested in understanding the origin of E=mc2. This curiosity led me to critically analyze Einstein?s original paper published in Annalen der Physik (A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 18, 639 1905) in which Einstein published E=mc2. Einstein?s 27 Sep 1905 paper (origin of E=mc2) available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
I found some serious in discrepancies, that even Einstein?s derivation of E=mc2 results in Contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter if results are analyzed over a wide range. It is unnoticed by scientific community.
It has resulted in modification of E=mc2. The paper is accepted for presentation over 50 international conferences. I presented the same in two conferences in University of Warwick and Oxford in 2005. E= mc2 extended to DE=Ac2Dm after 100 Years (paper published in peer review journal, abstracted in CURRENT CONTENTS)
The copy of the published paper, modifying Einstein?s E=mc2 to dE =Ac2 dm is attached. It is published from CANADA, OTTAWA in international journal of research Physics Essays (abstracted in Current Contents etc.) dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics.
The copy of paper is also available from journal?s online site for US $ 4.
May I hope that you and your colleagues or other scholars will give their opinions about it. The different opinions help us in properly understanding of the concepts about inter-conversion of mass and energy. I will be thankful to you, if you circulate the paper.
The contents of the paper are elaborated in price book (nearly 175 pp)
100 Years of E=mc2
which is being published NEW YORK (USA) based Nova Science Publishers.
The Publisher for non-English languages are required
Thanking you in anticipation. Hope to hear soon.

sincerely
AJAY SHARMA
For FREE copy of paper
Email physicsjay@lycos.co.uk

Mobiles 0091 92187 96236, 0091 98160 04244

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Einstein never wrote E=mc^2. And if you actually were published in a peer reviewed journal I believe the appropriate citations includes author's names, journal named, year, volume, and page number.

If what you have done is serious physics then:
1) What was Einstein's actual formula?
2) Where, precisely, have you been published

And while we are on the subject ... precisely which journal has published a paper supporting the proposition that Einstein was incorrect?

I find it fascinating that you have found inconsistencies and the entire physics community, both theoretical and experimental has not.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Please give me your email so that I may send you copy of the paper.
AJAY SHARMA

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
What does the A stand for?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
A is co-efficeitnt [coefficient] of proportionality.
If some wants then whole paper can be sent by Email
physicsajay@lycos.co.uk
AJAY SHARMA

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
physicsajay wrote:
"Please give me your email so that I may send you copy of the paper."

I teach at a large research university with a more than adequate library system. So if you don't mind then:

1. Author name
2. Journal name
3. Volume
4. Page

And, again, Einstein never wrote E=mc^2. Do you know what he actually wrote? Apparently not.

You claim Einstein was incorrect. Please provide a citation to a peer reviewed journal article that supports your contention.

Thank you.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by physicsajay:
E= mc2 extended (paper published in peer review journal)
The pseudo science is running mad. "peer review" is a dirty joke, obviously.

e smile s

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
If A is a proportionality constant then the "new" equation is exactly the same as E=m^c2, except for units. So what?

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Sorry I meant mc^2

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Dear Morgan and Members
If you wish to get the 28 page copy (pdf as published in journal)of paper and kindly
email at
physicsajay@lycos.co.uk

The paper is avaiable at publishers site for US $4.
SINCE I GOT THE JOURNAL I HAVE SENT ITS OVER 1000 COPIES TO VARIOUS SCIENTISTS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
After reading the paper you can decide about the contents of the paper. Each and every question is discussed is in details.
If you feel the paper is incorrectly published you can write to journals. But it is expected you understand each and every section of the paper.

Further in this paper I have critically analysed Einstein 101 years old paper in which he derived E=mc2 indirectly. The link for Einstein's paper
Einstein?s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
As you have aslked for address of the paper( NOT FOR 28 PAGE SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL ) , KINDLY SEE
NAme of journal Physics Essays
Specilaisation Fundamental question in physics
Year 2004
Number 17
Issue 2
Page 195-222
Author AJAY SHARMA
PLACE OF PUBLICATION . OTTAWA , CANADA

Some more information on the paper kindly see
Further links about modification of E=mc2
http://cosmology.info/forum/viewforum.php?f=18
http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Your second link is not any good. I tried it and couldn't get anything other than a message that the server could not be found. You might want to check that one out.

Amaranth

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
They may be updating the site. I also checked twice or thrice same is the problem
ajay sharma

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by physicsajay:
the site
Do you understand the article you cite? Get a clue.

e laugh s

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Yes I do. I have spent years on it. I have presented the same in international conferences and got it published in peer review journals.
On this topic my book
100 Years of E=mc2
is being published from New York by NOVA SCIENCE

Do you want to ask anything.
OK I wil reply.
But pre-requisite is prior understanding to
Einstein's Sep 1905 paper
&
My 28 page paper.
I can send you both, give me your Email and your affiliations at
physicsajay@lycos.co.uk

Thanks.
Sincerely
Ajay Sharma

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by physicsajay:
Yes I do. I have spent years on it.
Here is a quote from your writings, which shows that you do not understand elementary math limits :
--------------------------
(i) Inconsistency of dimensional homogeneity when v -> c in eq.(1).

If fi = 0, then eq. (1) becomes,
l* = l (1 ? v/c) / sqrt (1 ? v2 /c2) (4)

If the system [ .... ] moves with velocity equal to that of light i.e. v = c which realistically means that velocity v tends to c i.e. v -> c. (some Quasars or other heavenly bodies may attain such high velocities) .Thus,

l* = 0/0

which is undefined or l* tends to 0/0 which has the same meaning.
-------------------- end of quotation

The correct computation shows instead:
lim {(1 ? v/c) / sqrt (1 ? v2 /c2)} as v --> c =
= 1/sqrt( (1 ? v2 /c2)/(1 ? v/c)/(1 ? v/c) )
= sqrt( (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) ) = 0

Hence, l* = 0

Conclusion:

Before writing about theoretical physics issues, it would not harm to learn elementary Math.


ES

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
Explain the steps, one by one. Dont be in hurry. In my calculation no law has been violated.


AJAY SHARMA

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Probably not. But what have you proved except a proportional constant? Why can this constant not be equal to unity? So what? What are you trying to say?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally posted by physicsajay:
In my calculation no law has been violated.
Why not you just admit that your math education is below what is called high school over here?

You are an example of ignorance that has taken the place of science nowadays.

e laugh s

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Well done extrasense. Well done indeed. physicsajay is a fraud and not even a good one.

When I asked him for the citation so I could look his paper up on the library here's what he wrote at SAGG:

As you have aslked for address of the paper( NOT FOR 28 PAGE SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL ) , KINDLY SEE
NAme of journal Physics Essays Specilaisation Fundamental question in physics Year 2004
Number 17
Issue 2
Page 195-222

A two second trip to:
http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp
and a scroll down to Number 17: Issue 2 shows:

Vol. 17 No. 2 June 2004
* Model of Fundamental Particles. Part 2 - Leptons
* Laboratory Physics and Cosmology
* Einstein's Relativity Theory on Dock
* New Model of the Universe
* Theoretical Evidence of a Light Carrier
* The Two Velocities of Classical Waves
* Different Geometries for Special Relativity
* Physical Nature of the Bohmian Quantum Potential
* The Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation E = Ac2 M; and its Applications in General Physics and Cosmology
* The Fundamental Concepts of Classical Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics
* Some Correlations Between Light Nuclear Phenomena and an Extended Nuclear Cluster Model
* Erratum: The Relativity Theories and the Speed of Light

No "Specilaisation Fundamental question in physics". What a surprise.

And still he has been unable to write the formula that Einstein actually wrote which is not E=mc^2.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
P
Member
OP Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 17
To
ES
Kindly see that this issue has ben discussed at 207 and 208 of paper in SECTION 4.
Have you read it?
Do you have copy of paper?
The equation you are discussing was derived by Einstein June 1905c and Sep 1905 papers.
I really dont know you about your scientific affiliations. LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT.
I welcome criticism and also reply but it must be well founded.
If you understand there is everything right in paper.
AJAY SHARMA

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5