General Comments: Conversion of Mass and Energy
         The Mass|Massless Contradiction

Einstein's famous formula, energy equals mass times c-square, proposes the idea of the equivalency and conversion of mass to energy as representing an equivalency between mass and energy.
It is often stated that

the photon (the electromagnetic particle-wave of light) is massless. However, as far as I can tell from the science literature, this statement does not appear to represent a confirmed exact fact. In order to demonstrate theoretically the equivalency and conversion of mass and energy, the 108-year-old formula proposed multiplying mass times the square of the photon's speed (299,792,458.0 m/s). As shown previously, this formula makes little sense. Its lack of sense appears in the relativists' argument now that c-square does not really represent the square of velocity of c. With that affirmation one of the formula's principal terms and its derivation have been denied. But, even more significant in my mind, it makes little or no sense, to multiply a mass times a massless event.  This mathematical procedure reminds me of the apples|oranges debate.
If the cited photon has no mass, then in a sense it would appear to represent pure energy, that is mass already converted to energy. The formula would thus read theoretically as energy equals mass multiplied times pure energy squared.

E = m•pureE2             or, Energy = mass times pure-energy2

Energy = mass times massless pure-energy-squared

With all this, the logic of Einstein's formula has totally escaped me. It would appear that the equation states that energy supposedly equals a mass multiplied times the massless photon's velocity squared. Only now we are told that the velocity of c is not actually squared, and further we are told that the c-photon has no mass. The question remains, then, what is it in terms of matter-energy in spacetime/motion that is actually being multiplied times a mass? By the relativists' own statements, it is not another mass (space) and it is not pure velocity (motion). The only possible element left is that of time (time itself). But mathematical procedure based on squaring time in this equation makes even less sense.
So, evidently c-square is simply a mentally abstracted big number [299,792,458.0 meters multiplied 299,792,458 times, in other words, a large 8.98755187E16. In my mind, there are other ways to derive a big number without having to disregard logic. Further, with regard to the conversion of mass-energy, the number the relativists have chosen may in fact be a small number and not represent exactly the conversion of mass and energy at all. Take into account the conversion of mass to energy of an atomic bomb, as the ones exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. These continue to produce conversions today in people's illnesses and effects from the bombs, rendering the formula as far too weak in its numerical expression and concept of time (one second). Other less belligerent examples would concern the fact that electromagnetic particle waves (the so-called photon) are traveling still after 13.82 billion light-years supposedly from the Big Bang. Again, the one-second conversion in the formula appears weak, if not incorrect.
If the concept of time is meant to be the term of c in Einstein's formula in this modified version as suspected, then it would mean that energy equals a mass times the square of 299,792,458 seconds. This will generate a large number in time, but not necessarily an existing one. The square of 299792458 seconds, implicit in Einstein's famous formula, represents 2,847,936,519.0 Earth years. For 8.98755187E16 meters requires, according to the measured unit c, 2,847,936,519.0 seconds for a photon to attain that distance. But, again, since the relativists now state that c-square does not involve velocity, then it can neither pertain to distance and/or time traveled.
So, one must continue to be amazed by the reasoning exercised in such attempts to confirm the famous formula derived by Einstein and the need to substantiate the theory of relativity.

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.