Open Letter to Prof. Andrew George, University of DENVER, Dept ofPhysics, COLORADO, 80208 USA.

Discussion in 'Java' started by ross, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. ross

    ross Guest

    Open Letter to Prof. Andrew George, University of DENVER, Dept of
    Physics, COLORADO, 80208 USA.
    Ref. Einstein’s Sep 1905 derivation predicts that,
    ‘When body emits Light Energy, its Mass must also Increase’.

    Ajay Sharma
    Fundamental Physics Society, His Mercy Enclave, Post Box 107, 171001
    HP India
    Email , Website


    To draw scientific conclusions, the knowledge of the paper/topic and
    basic aspects of science is necessary. But it has not been so in Prof
    Andrew George’s comments regarding Ajay Sharma’s work on Einstein’s
    Sep. 1905 paper in the published in Galilean Electrodynamics. Ajay
    Sharma has confirmed in various publications that Einstein’s Sep. 1905
    derivation contradicts law of conservation of matter under some
    conditions. This aspect is justified here.

    1.0 Theme of discussion

    (i) This discussion deals with original derivation of E=mc2 i.e.
    Energy emitted = (Mass

    Einstein [1] initially derived L=mc2 (Light Energy Mass equation) in
    Sep.1905 paper and speculated E=mc2 from it. The final equations in
    Einstein’s derivation [1] can be quoted as

    K0 - K1 =

    where K0 is KE of body before emission of Light Energy, K1 is KE
    after emission of light energy L . Einstein further interpreted eq.
    (2) as

    Mb v2 /2 - Mav2 /2 = Lv2/2c2
    Ma = Mb -L/c2

    Or Mass of body after emission of light energy
    = Mass of body before emission of light
    energy -L/c2 (3)

    It implies that when body emits light energy its mass decreases by
    factor L/c2 .
    Einstein has obtained eq.(3) under special conditions with
    handpicked values of various parameters.
    Ajay Sharma [2-9] has published papers/articles in International
    Journals and Conferences after peer review. The same aspect is
    illustrated in book [9] Einstein’s E=mc2 Generalized with details.
    The striking point of
    Ajay Sharma’s work is that Einstein’s derivation of L=mc2 as given in
    Sep.1905 paper is true under VERY-2 SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Further from L
    = mc2 Einstein speculated or postulated E = mc2, as no derivation or
    mathematical treatment has been given [1].

    (ii) Here is also other side of the picture. Under general
    conditions Einstein’s Sep. 1905 derivation of L =mc2 (from which E=mc2
    This derivation (Einstein’s Sep.1905 derivation) predicts (under some
    conditions) that
    ‘When body emits light energy its mass must increase’
    Under some conditions [2-9] eq.(3) also reads as

    Mass of body after emission of light energy
    = Mass of body before emission of light energy +
    positive quantity (3)
    Thus when body emits Light Energy its mass increases. It is not
    correct prediction from Einstein’s Sep. 1905 paper.

    2.0 The series of misperceptions of Prof. Andrew George about
    Einstein’s Sep. 1905 derivation and about Ajay Sharma’s publications.

    Dr Andrew George, Physics Department, University of Denver, Denver,
    CO, 80208, USA and his unscientific comments.
    Prof. Andrew George [10] has quoted or re-written eq.(4) from Ajay
    Sharma’s work published in international journal Physics Essays [2]

    K1- K0 = - Lv2/2c2
    +LβγcosΦ (4)

    where γ = 1/ (1-v2/c2)1/2 , β = v/c and Φ is angle at which light
    energy is emitted. Ajay Sharma has justified [2] both mathematically
    and conceptually, how this equation leads to inconsistent results

    When body EMITS light energy its mass must INCREASE.

    But Dr Andrew George has called this conclusion incorrect, which is
    based upon his following personal scientific limitations or lack of
    knowledge of Einstein’s Sep 1905 paper, Ajay Sharma interpretation
    and basic aspects of science (especially principle of dimensional

    (i) It is taught in high school that in science conclusions are
    drawn from final equation taking all factors in account. Dr Andrew
    George [10] has deviated from this rule and without ANY SCIENTIFIC
    LOGIC has drawn conclusions from middle of derivation from an
    In case Prof. George has solved eq.(4)
    further , then he would have supported Ajay Sharma’s claim.

    (ii) Each term in eq.(4) has dimensions of energy .In RHS of eq.(4)
    he has arbitrarily interpreted one term as ‘energy’ [ML2T-2] and other
    as ‘mass’[ML0T0]; the LHS of the same equation is Kinetic energy. In
    his paper [2] Ajay Sharma has converted the equation in terms of mass
    for final conclusions. It is again discussed in next sub-section. But
    Prof. George has not
    tried to read the same, which would have removed all his
    misperceptions. In the paper [2] , the same conclusion is drawn over
    half dozen times , about which Prof. Andrew George is completely

    (iii) Prof. Andrew George has illogically concluded that eq.(4)

    When body emits Light Energy, the mass of body decreases by L/c2.
    It clearly states he does not have any idea of Einstein’s Sep. 1905
    derivation or he is contradicting the same also. It can be easily
    illustrated how Einstein arrived at above conclusion. We have

    K0 - K1 =
    Mb v2 /2 - Mav2 /2 = Lv2/2c2
    Ma = Mb -L/c2

    Or Mass of body after emission of light energy
    = Mass of body before emission of light
    energy -L/c2 (3)

    Hence everything is transparent, eq.(2) and eq.(4) can never give same
    deductions for as angle Φ has numerous values. So much so Ajay Sharma
    [2] has carefully justified the same in his publications.
    But Dr Andrew George[10] did not take all aspects in account and
    jumped to incorrect and unscientific conclusions. Own limitations
    cannot make one wise.

    3.0 The correct approach, as published in various peer review

    Prof. George Andrew has justified Sharma’s work
    completely, but did not solve the equation. In his paper Ajay Sharma
    [2] has solved equation further for Φ =89◦, cos89◦ = 0.01745.
    Thus eq.(4) becomes

    Ma v2 /2 – Mbv2 /2 = -Lv2/2c2 + 0.01745 Lγv/c
    Ma – Mb = -L/c2 + 0.03490 Lγ/cv

    Einstein has derived equation under classical conditions i.e. v =10m/
    s, hence
    Ma – Mb = -L/c2 + 0.04 L/10c
    Mass after emission (Ma)
    = Mass before emission (Mb) + (0.04L/10c –L/
    c2) (1)
    Here ( 0.04L/10c –L/c2 ) is positive quantity and each term has
    dimensions of mass [ML0T0];.
    ‘When light energy is emitted, mass of body must also increases’

    It is not correct prediction from Einstein’s Sep. 1905 derivation
    under general conditions.
    Thus Prof. Andrew should have drawn conclusions from the final
    equation that too with scientific logic. If properly interpreted Prof.
    Andrew George’s work supports Sharma’s work that Einstein’s Sep 1905
    derivation is true under special conditions only, not in general.

    The author is thankful to Prof. Andrew George, University of Denver ,
    Colorado, USA for his interest on the author’s work.


    [1]. Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).

    [2] Sharma, A. Physics Essays 17 195-222 (2004)

    [3] Sharma, A Proceedings of International Conference on
    Methods in Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co.
    585-586 (2003)

    [4] Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
    Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
    August , 2006 Forth Worth Texas, USA

    [5] Sharma A. Abstract Book , Physics 2005 – A Century after
    Einstein (Institute of Physics, Bristol England ) University of
    Warwick pp 144 2005

    [6] Sharma, A , Proceedings of International Conference on Number,
    Time, Relativity United Physical Society of Russian Federation,
    Moscow , pp.81-82 August 2004

    [7] Sharma, A. Concepts of Physics, Vol III 351-375 (2006)

    [8] Sharma, A. Journal of Gravitational Physics, Vol 1 No 1 9-31

    [9] Sharma, A. Einstein’s E=mc2 Generalized, Raider Publishing
    International, New York, USA 2007

    [10] George , A Galilean Electrodynamics , Vol. 18 No 4. 80 (2007)
    ross, Jan 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lew

    Lew Guest

    Re: Open Letter to Prof. Andrew George, University of DENVER, Deptof Physics, COLORADO, 80208 USA.

    ross wrote:
    > Open Letter to Prof. Andrew George,

    What has this got to do with Java programming?

    Oh, and by the way, no one cares about your little pseudo-science babble.
    Upper-case polemics are no substitute for peer-reviewed publication. If you
    actually had any kind of a case with respect to theoretical physics, it sure
    wouldn't be to a Usenet group devoted to Java programming that you'd present
    it, now would it?

    Buh-bye, now.

    Lew, Jan 20, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Redmond
    John Redmond
    Nov 23, 2005
  2. vertigo

    big letter -> small letter

    vertigo, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Reinhold Birkenfeld
    Jul 6, 2004
  3. Tony Meyer

    RE: big letter -> small letter

    Tony Meyer, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Tony Meyer
    Jul 6, 2004
  4. Andrew McNamara

    Re: big letter -> small letter

    Andrew McNamara, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Python
    Scott David Daniels
    Jul 6, 2004
  5. moe zarella
    moe zarella
    Apr 3, 2010

Share This Page