Eric Gisse wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed
of light is variable:

Who cares? 1911 was 4 years before 1915, which was when General
Relativity was complete.

There has never been so much confusion and despair in Einstein's
criminal cult. That must be the end. See also the discussion in the
NATURE newsblog:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Both hypnotists and zombies should sing "Divine Einstein" for the last
time and try to find some more profitable business.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm :

Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith

(To the tune of "I'm Lookin' Over a Four-leaf Clover")

No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed
of light is variable:

Who cares? 1911 was 4 years before 1915, which was when General
Relativity was complete.

There has never been so much confusion and despair in Einstein's
criminal cult. That must be the end. See also the discussion in the
NATURE newsblog:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Both hypnotists and zombies should sing "Divine Einstein" for the last
time and try to find some more profitable business.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm :

Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith

(To the tune of "I'm Lookin' Over a Four-leaf Clover")

No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

Pentcho Valev

100 Years of E=mc2
Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

1. What is E=mc2 ? What is its importance?

E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. In
1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base
upon this equation. According to this mass (m) can be converted to
energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass.

2. This equation is doing well since past 100 years then where is the
inconsistency?

The inconsistency lies in its mathematical derivation (a method to
obtain a mathematical equation). In his 1905 paper Einstein did not
derive it mathematically but in true sense speculated it. Einstein
earlier derived L = mc2 (light energy mass conversion equation). Then
Einstein speculated that what is true for light energy (L) the same is
true for every energy (E). This speculation results in E=mc2, such a
significant equation must be based upon a specific mathematical
derivation and not on speculation.

3. Is Einstein's derivation of L =mc2 correct?

The derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or true in special conditions
only. Einstein took just handpicked parameters out of numerous
possible, to obtain the equation. Einstein was aware of the reality so
he left in midway after getting the desired result. If all valid
values of parameters are taken, then results are contradictory in
nature.

4. What are contradictory results?

Some UNDISCUSSED predictions of Einstein's 29 Sep. 1905 derivation
blatantly contradict Law of Conservation of Matter. I have
scientifically confirmed the same. No limitation can be bigger than
this in science.

5. Was E=mc2 or similar ideas existed before Einstein?

Yes, E=mc2 existed before Einstein. An Italian Olinto de Pretto
published E=mc2 in valid scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, Feb. 1904,
two years before Einstein. But Pretto died in 1921, before its
experimental confirmation in nuclear physics.

6. Einstein speculated E=mc2 from L=mc2. What is the problem here?

Firstly derivation of L=mc2 is incomplete or under special conditions
only. Secondly Einstein originated E=mc2 on the basis of speculation
only without any conceptual and mathematical basis. Basically Einstein
replaced L by E in equation L=mc2 to get E=mc2.

7. Then how did you derive new equation, dE =Ac2dm (or DE = Ac2 DM )?

I have derived new equation between mass-energy conservation by simple
calculus method. In dE =Ac2dm, A is a co-efficient of proportionality
like numerous others in science. It is dimensionless variable.

Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

8. How do you compare these two equations?

Firstly dE =Ac2dm is based upon a conceptual and mathematical
derivation. On the other hand E=mc2 is a speculation, it is bitter
truth. Secondly dE =Ac2dm is a general equation and E=mc2 is its
special case. Energy emitted by new equation can be less, equal to or
more than predicted by E=mc2.

9. How did you justify your equation experimentally?

In Nuclear Physics there are some anomalous results which cannot be
explained by E=mc2 . Like this there are some instances in
astrophysics where my equation is extremely useful.

10. Is your work recognized by international scientific community?

Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals.

11 Have you got any recognition certificate from the scientific
community?

The only way to get scientific recognition is that to get the work
published in peer review international journals and conferences. My
research papers are either published in international journals from
America, England and Canada or being published. I have got invitation
from at least 55 International Conferences to present my work. I have
presented my research in international conferences in USA, England,
Germany, Taiwan Ukraine etc. I have invitation from France and Italy
to present my work this year.

12. Can this work be introduced in Schools and colleges?

Yes my wok is scientifically approved in journal in USA, CANADA and
England. Hence it can be so done by any country. IT IS THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE WORK.

13. How do you counter the opposition of the people which has come in
you your way?
Science is the international language. For this, I take seriously the
logical conclusions of the critics. I completely ignore the
irresponsible critics, as they don't exist.
The critics when understand the things become my supporters.

14. What about your book, 100 Years of E=mc2?

This book is being published soon.
It will bring clear and unbiased picture of the facts. Science today
is not the same in 16th or 17th century. We should aim at 22nd or 23rd
century scientific scenarios.

Interviewer Rajesh Thakoor Email


Book Link :
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

http://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-...e=UTF8&s=books

Sam Wormley wrote:
E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

http://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-...e=UTF8&s=books

Sam,

He's a deluded troll that thinks he's "completed" Einstein's
"unfinished" work. He wrote the sa,me **** on 28 pages, ad nauseam.

Sam Wormley wrote:
E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

http://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-...e=UTF8&s=books

Sam,

He's a deluded troll that thinks he's "completed" Einstein's
"unfinished" work. He wrote the same **** on 28 pages, ad nauseam.

In article zSkLg.127373$FQ1.125363@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley writes:


E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

If it is the most famous, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is but
a corollary of far more important relationships. Keeping propagating
the notion that this is, somehow, a key result of physics does a
disservice to the public's science education.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:
In article zSkLg.127373$FQ1.125363@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley writes:


E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

If it is the most famous, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is but
a corollary of far more important relationships. Keeping propagating
the notion that this is, somehow, a key result of physics does a
disservice to the public's science education.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

What is your opinion the Ajay Sharma's claims of "completing"
Einstein's work?

In article .com, writes:

wrote:
In article zSkLg.127373$FQ1.125363@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley writes:


E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

If it is the most famous, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is but
a corollary of far more important relationships. Keeping propagating
the notion that this is, somehow, a key result of physics does a
disservice to the public's science education.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

What is your opinion the Ajay Sharma's claims of "completing"
Einstein's work?

He's gibbering.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote:
In article .com, writes:

wrote:
In article zSkLg.127373$FQ1.125363@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley writes:


E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

If it is the most famous, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is but
a corollary of far more important relationships. Keeping propagating
the notion that this is, somehow, a key result of physics does a
disservice to the public's science education.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

What is your opinion the Ajay Sharma's claims of "completing"
Einstein's work?

He's gibbering.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Yep, but he's pretty pushy. He paid his way into a lot of conferences
(they always need some clowns to entertain them) and he managed to fool
the reviewers of Physics Essays (looking a little more carefully at
what PE is publishing it may not have been difficult at all). The
idiot does not understand how Einstein set up his derivation, changed
it to something else and now claims that he's found "errors" in
Einstein's work. A dork!

In article .com, writes:

wrote:
In article .com, writes:

wrote:
In article zSkLg.127373$FQ1.125363@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley writes:


E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation

If it is the most famous, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is but
a corollary of far more important relationships. Keeping propagating
the notion that this is, somehow, a key result of physics does a
disservice to the public's science education.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

What is your opinion the Ajay Sharma's claims of "completing"
Einstein's work?

He's gibbering.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Yep, but he's pretty pushy. He paid his way into a lot of conferences
(they always need some clowns to entertain them) and he managed to fool
the reviewers of Physics Essays (looking a little more carefully at
what PE is publishing it may not have been difficult at all).

Yes, indeed.

The idiot does not understand how Einstein set up his derivation, changed
it to something else and now claims that he's found "errors" in
Einstein's work. A dork!

He's not the first one, and for sure not the last. To me, anyway,
just the fact that somebody consideres E = mc^2 the key point of
relativity is a dead giveaway that his knowledge is on the "coffee
table books" level. Also, the original derivations by Einstein are of
historical interest but for the most part they've already been
replaced by more modern and more general ones. Same as with Newtonian
mechanics, we may read the Principia for historical interest but for
actual derivations thee are more modern sources.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"