PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE - PRESS RELEASE
New Publication - Earth/matriX Editions
For immediate release: New Orleans, Louisiana, December 11, 2010
©2010 Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
Einstein's Formula Stands
of Speed of Light,
Not the Conversion of Mass|Energy:
(c9 = c7 c2 the Basis of E = mc2)
Author: Charles William Johnson
Physicists have praised Einstein's formula, E = mc2
as the discovery of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum, c2
and its mediation between mass (m) and energy (e). In fact, the formula
is said to hold the key to the conversion between mass and energy. Charles
William Johnson, in his most recent book, Einstein's Formula: Mass
Confusion [Earth/matriX Editions], shows that Einstein's formula has
its origin in the imaginary formula c9 = c7 c2,
and does not represent the conversion of mass|energy.
To illustrate the confusion about mass|energy
inherent in Einstein's formula Charles W. Johnson walks the reader through
the formula's computational steps. The numerical expressions for Planck
energy, 1.9561 and Planck mass, 2.17644 are commonly substituted
for the terms of E and m respectively in Einstein's formula: 1.9561
= 2.17644 times 8.987551787, thus, 1.9651 = 1.9561. This apparent
relation of equivalency is often cited as the confirmation of Einstein's
formula for the conversion of mass|energy.
However, Johnson reminds us that c is the
upper speed limit for a light photon: 299792458 meters/second, and that
matter|energy cannot travel faster than that velocity. Thus, he contends
that the square of that number produces an imaginary number without any
existence in spacetime. Johnson also points out that Planck constants
are based not only c-square, but more imaginatively on c3 ,
c4 , c5 , c6 and c7. If c-square
produces an unreal number, then Johnson asks that we imagine how even
more unreal are these higher powers.
Johnson states that the key to understanding
just how unreal is Einstein's formula may be seen with regard to the numerical
expressions for c7 which is 2.176431087 [Planck mass]
and, c9 which is 1.956078711 [Planck energy].
Thus, Johnson argues that all Einstein had to do was substitute the terms
E and m for similar values. With that, one now knows the original equation
that may have served as the basis for Einstein's formula:
c9 = c7 c2
1.956078711 = 2.176431087 x 8.987551787
This equation renders an equivalency among
imaginary numbers corresponding to powers of the upper limit of the
speed of a massless light photon.
Without a doubt, Johnson contends, that the
values for Planck energy, 1.9561 (c9) and Planck mass, 2.17644
(c7) published by physicists have been chosen, not because
they supposedly represent a theoretical interpretation of energy|mass,
but because of their mathematical relevancy to the square of the speed
of light in a vacuum (c2). There is then no theoretical
reasoning behind the constants of 2.7644 Planck mass and 1.9561 as Planck
implied energy, often cited in the science literature.
Johnson further affirms that the concept of
c2 in Einstein's formula is not the alleged magic bullet between
mass and energy. Einstein's equation actually derives c9 as
the final equivalency of the terms.
c9 = c7 c2
c9 = c9
These multiples of c represent imaginary numbers
in that they do not reflect actual matter|energy events in spacetime.
Thus, Johnson concludes that Einstein's formula E = mc2,
appears to have been derived from the equation c9 = c7
c2 . By using Planck values Einstein's formula is actually
a modified version of the c9 = c7 c2
equation. The confusion regarding mass|energy conversion obtains since
the root origins of the Planck values, 2.17644 and 1.9561, as powers of
c, have not been disclosed . This has caused many scientists for over
100 years to propose the erroneous idea that these numerical values are
unique constants of Planck energy and Planck mass. Thus they have proposed
an equally erroneous idea that Einstein's equation is proof of the equivalency
and conversion of mass|energy. It is not; it merely proves powers of c.
Johnson holds that it is impossible to continue
to use Einstein's formula and the numerical values for Planck mass and
Planck energy since they are irrelevant and without a theoretical basis.
That part of physics based upon Einstein's formula and the cited Planck
constant values must be re-examined, he states. Fortunately, the well-known
formula that has come to be called "Einstein's formula" has nothing to
do with Albert Einstein's theoretical theses about spacetime, time dilation,
or length contraction. And therefore, the demise of Einstein's formula
will not affect Einstein's theory of relativity. Or will it?, asks Johnson
at the end of his analysis.
Earth/matriX Editions - P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126,
www.earthmatrix.com - email@example.com
©11 December 2010 Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion
Einstein's Formula: A Special Case
Fundamental Physical Constants Notes:
Fractal Multiples and Einstein's Equation
The physics paradigm today is based mainly upon the concept of c-square, the squaring of the speed of light in a vacuum. Numerous fundamental physical and chemical constants provided in the physics literature [CODATA] reflect numerical values based upon powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined to represent the upper limit of movement of mass|energy by physicists.
The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical value that does not exist in any form of matter-energy. The c-square actually represents a number that corresponds to a near massless event: a light photon. The author goes beyond a critique of Albert Einstein’s famous formula based upon this unreal number. The rejection of Einstein’s formula is explored through basic math, the summation of powers in the equation’s terms.
A common procedure followed in deriving many of the CODATA recommendations is to divide certain fundamental physical constants by the value of the elementary charge, e, 1.602176487. With regard to the Planck constants and units of measurement, the case is argued that Max Planck may have simply reversed engineered this procedure in order to derive his natural units.