Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion
New Publication - Earth/matriX Editions
For immediate release: New Orleans, Louisiana, December 11, 2010
©2010 Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
Einstein’s Formula: Mass Confusion
( c^9 = c^7c^2 the Basis of E = mc^2 )
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.
Earth/matriX Editions – P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126, USA. www.earthmatrix-muniments.com - email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org 504-202-7615 Cell
Jorge Luna Martinez email@example.com
Marco Icaza firstname.lastname@example.org
P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA 70183-1126
This release was published on openPR.
Permanent link to this press release:
Please set a link in the press area of your homepage to this press release on openPR. openPR disclaims liability for any content contained in this release.
You can edit or delete your press release Einstein's Formula: Mass Confusion here
News-ID: 155136 • Views: 2268
More Releases for Einstein
DR. EINSTEIN SAYS INSTALLING OXAIR’S PSA SYSTEM WAS A BRAINWAVE
Ensuring a constant supply of oxygen for India’s healthcare sector, one of the biggest in the country, can be difficult if hospitals and medical facilities are serving remote locations and rely on outsourcing this life-saving gas. At the mercy of extreme weather conditions and haphazard transport links, failing supplies are a potential nightmare for hospitals, not to mention the problems associated with storage, handling and removal of traditional oxygen cylinders.
Muffins Market 2019 Global Analysis By Key Players – BAB, Bruegger’s Enterpr …
Muffins Market 2019 Wiseguyreports.Com adds “Muffins Market –Market Demand, Growth, Opportunities, Analysis of Top Key Players and Forecast to 2025” To Its Research Database. Report Details: This report provides in depth study of “Muffins Market” using SWOT analysis i.e. Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat to the organization. The Muffins Market report also provides an in-depth survey of key players in the market which is based on the various objectives of an organization such
Baby Mats Market 2019 - Baby Care, Bright Starts, Lollaland, Baby Mushroom, Baby …
Global Baby Mats Market 2019-2024: According to the Global Baby Mats Market report, the market is expected to reach the value of $XX million at the end of the forecast period of 2019 – 2025, showing good progress, rising at a CAGR of XX%. The global Baby Mats Market report covers a detailed analysis of the Baby Mats Market including the various parameters on which the Baby Mats Market
Baby Sleeping Bag Market: Comprehensive Study Explores Huge Growth In Future| Ba …
HTF MI recently introduced Baby Sleeping Bag - Global Market study with in-depth overview, describing about the Product / Industry Scope and elaborates market outlook and status to 2023. The market Study is segmented by key regions which are accelerating the marketization. At present, the market is developing its presence and some of the key players from the complete study are Babybjorn,Babydan,Baby Einstein,Grobag,Purflo,Mamas & Papas,Silver Cross,Stokke,Aden & Anais,Carter’s,Halo,Summer Infant,Puckababy etc.
Global Baby Mats Market 2018 - Lollaland, Baby Mushroom, Baby Einstein, Skip Hop
Apex Market Reports, recently published a detailed market research study focused on the “ Baby Mats Market” across the global, regional and country level. The report provides 360° analysis of “ Baby Mats Market” from view of manufacturers, regions, product types and end industries. The research report analyses and provides the historical data along with current performance of the global PP Pipe industry, and estimates the future trend of Baby
Global Baby Mats and Gyms Market 2017 - Infantino, Disney, Fisher, Skip Hop, Bab …
This Baby Mats and Gyms report comprehends outline in Global market, especially in North America, Europe and Asia. It focuses on top most manufacturers in global market, with production, price, and revenue and market share for each manufacturer. Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key. It splits into Product type and product application. Request For Sample Report @ https://www.fiormarkets.com/report-detail/109195/request-sample Global Baby Mats and Gyms Market Research Report