Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion

PRESS RELEASE 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.

Title:
Einstein’s Formula: Mass Confusion
( c^9 = c^7c^2 the Basis of E = mc^2 )


Author:
Charles William Johnson

Physicists have praised Einstein’s formula, E = mc^2 as the discovery of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum, c^2 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. The Earth/matriX project has shown that it does not actually accomplish that, and finds its origin in the imaginary formula c^9 = c^7 c^2.

To illustrate the confusion about mass|energy inherent in Einstein’s formula Charles W. Johnson, founder of the Earth/matriX project, 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.

No one knows how Einstein happened upon the concept of c^2 , which appears as the mediating factor in his formula. But 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, contends Johnson, the square of that number produces an imaginary, nonexistent number. Certain Planck constants are based not only c-square, but more imaginatively on c^3 , c^4 , c^5 , c^6 and c^7. If c-square produces an unreal number, imagine how even more unreal are these powers.

Now, here’s the key to understanding just how unreal is Einstein’s formula. The numerical expression for c^7 is 2.176431087 [Planck mass]! And, c^9 derives 1.956078711 [Planck energy]!! All Einstein had to do was substitute the terms E and m for similar values. Now, one knows the original equation that may have served as the basis for Einstein’s formula:
c^9 = c^7 c^2
1.956078711 = 2.176431087 x 8.987551787

That renders an equivalency among imaginary numbers corresponding to powers of the upper limit of the speed of a massless light photon.

Without a doubt, the values for Planck energy, 1.9561 (c^9) and Planck mass, 2.17644 (c^7) by the CODATA 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 (c^2). There is then no theoretical reasoning behind the choices of 2.7644 Planck mass and 1.9561 as Planck implied energy, often cited in the science literature. It is simple math; trivial math.

Johnson further affirms that the concept of c^2 in Einstein’s formula is not the alleged magic bullet between mass and energy. Einstein’s equation actually derives c^9 as the final equivalency of the terms.
c^9 = c^7 c^2
c^9 = c^9

These multiples of c represent imaginary numbers in that they do not reflect actual matter|energy events in spacetime. Einstein’s formula E = mc^2, appears to be derived from the equation c^9 = c^7 c^2 . By using Planck values Einstein’s formula is actually a modified version the c^9 = c^7 c^2 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 105 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 power of c.

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. Fortunately, the well-known formula that has come to be called “Einstein’s formula” has nothing to do with his 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.

Contact:
Earth/matriX Editions – P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126, USA. www.earthmatrix-muniments.com - johnson@earthmatrix.com
©11 December 2010 Copyrighted. All rights reserved.

Earth/matriX Editions published works on Science Today in the fields of chemistry, physics, astronomy and geography. Earth/matriX Editions also publishes works on the math and geometry in ancient artwork and paleoanimations aboug ancient animation in artwork from around the globe. The company produces also videos on ancient artwork and science today.

Charles William Johnson johnson@earthmatrix.com 504-202-7615 Cell
Jorge Luna Martinez sales@earthmatrix.com
Marco Icaza micaza@earthmatrix.com
P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 70183-1126

This release was published on openPR.