wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.


OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.


"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.

This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.

No such thing as an absolute dimension, as far as I know. Where are you
getting gthat from?


Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.

That is also incorrect.


Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.

And why is a *physical* quantum based on an *arbitrary* length of time
(1 second)? Why on earth would nature regard 1 Hz as being a natural
unit?
Why would a fundamental charge unit stubbornly refuse to be 1 coulomb,
why would the Planck length stubbornly refuse to be 1 meter, but the
smallest fundamental frequency meekly succumb to being a friendly 1 Hz?

PD

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

| Why would a fundamental charge unit stubbornly refuse to be 1 coulomb,

Hahahahahaha!!!!
Why would a fundamental atom refuse to be a planet?

wrote:
Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================



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.
Einstein's 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

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.
For examples there are many variables in Einstein's derivation e.g.
number of light waves emitted by body, magnitude of light energy, angle
at which light energy is emitted and relative velocity v. Einstein just
took handpicked values of variables.
If general values of variables are
taken then results are contradictory to experiments.
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.

Sharma June 2004 paper is available
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

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.



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


References of Einstein's work
.
A.Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641. .
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
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_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 is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
I 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/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA

They're crawling out of the woodwork today!

PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.


OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.

So you're saying Vergon doesn't understand the concept of a
mathematical inequality? Who would have guessed.

Igor wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:

What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.


OK, so you don't know what "mass upper limit" means. Hint: It does NOT
mean the fields have mass.

So you're saying Vergon doesn't understand the concept of a
mathematical inequality? Who would have guessed.

He shares a lot conceptually with Porat, though Porat apparently has
lost the ability to type coherently in the effort.

Vergon and Porat both confuse an upper limit with a nonzero measured
value.
Vergon and Porat both think that *definition* of momentum and kinetic
energy is based on a function of mass and speed.
Vergon and Porat both think that Planck's constant carries with it some
fundamental mass.
Vergon and Porat both think that the smallest photon frequency unit is
1 Hz.
Vergon and Porat both think that SI base units somehow represent
physically fundamental absolute dimensions.
Vergon and Porat both think that E=mc^2 means that anything with energy
has mass.
Vergon and Porat both think that every time they do an algebraic
manipulation, they own copyright on the result.

It seems that with extremely limited resources, the spoils of the
effort are extremely predictable results.

PD

kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

Another ignorant player escorted off the stage. It doesn't matter what
you personally believe. Things in science have precise definitions and
if you don't know what you are talking about, that's your problem.

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

I'll give you one more chance to define energy. What is energy?

"Igor" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Igor wrote:
wrote:

"Energy" is mass in motion.

Oh, I'm sorry! That's not the true definition of energy. Give this
guy the consolation prize and get him off stage. He's had his fifteen
minutes of ignominious fame and we're not going to allow him back until
he can learn some actual physics.
========================================

That "energy is a mass in motion" happens to be the correct explanation.
Someone might say that it does not explain the energy of a particle, but
that is because he does not understand the real essence of mass. There is
no
"solid" mass.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

I'll give you one more chance to define energy. What is energy?

Are you talking to me? At a particle level it is an acceleration of space,
wider it is a motion of a particle.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

wrote:
BS snipped
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catal...oducts_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA

Another shameless self promotion by the well known crackpot, Ajay
Sharma.