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

R

#### ross

Open Letter to Prof. Andrew George, University of DENVER, Dept of
Ref. Einsteinâ€™s Sep 1905 derivation predicts that,
â€˜When body emits Light Energy, its Mass must also Increaseâ€™.

Ajay Sharma
Fundamental Physics Society, His Mercy Enclave, Post Box 107, 171001
HP India
Email (e-mail address removed) , Website www.AjayOnLine.us

Abstract

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 Georgeâ€™s comments regarding Ajay Sharmaâ€™s work on Einsteinâ€™s
Sep. 1905 paper in the published in Galilean Electrodynamics. Ajay
Sharma has confirmed in various publications that Einsteinâ€™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
annihilated).c2
(1)

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

K0 - K1 =
Lv2/2c2
(2)

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  Einsteinâ€™s E=mc2 Generalized with details.
The striking point of
Ajay Sharmaâ€™s work is that Einsteinâ€™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 .

(ii) Here is also other side of the picture. Under general
conditions Einsteinâ€™s Sep. 1905 derivation of L =mc2 (from which E=mc2
is speculated) CONTRADICTS the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER.
This derivation (Einsteinâ€™s Sep.1905 derivation) predicts (under some
conditions) that
â€˜When body emits light energy its mass must increaseâ€™
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 Einsteinâ€™s Sep. 1905 paper.

2.0 The series of misperceptions of Prof. Andrew George about
Einsteinâ€™s Sep. 1905 derivation and about Ajay Sharmaâ€™s publications.

Dr Andrew George, Physics Department, University of Denver, Denver,
CO, 80208, USA and his unscientific comments.
Prof. Andrew George  has quoted or re-written eq.(4) from Ajay
Sharmaâ€™s work published in international journal Physics Essays 
as

K1- K0 = - Lv2/2c2
+LÎ²Î³cosÎ¦ (4)

where Î³ = 1/ (1-v2/c2)1/2 , Î² = v/c and Î¦ is angle at which light
energy is emitted. Ajay Sharma has justified  both mathematically
and conceptually, how this equation leads to inconsistent results
i.e.

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 Einsteinâ€™s Sep 1905 paper, Ajay Sharma interpretation
and basic aspects of science (especially principle of dimensional
homogeneity.

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

(ii) Each term in eq.(4) has dimensions of energy .In RHS of eq.(4)
he has arbitrarily interpreted one term as â€˜energyâ€™ [ML2T-2] and other
as â€˜massâ€™[ML0T0]; the LHS of the same equation is Kinetic energy. In
his paper  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  , the same conclusion is drawn over
half dozen times , about which Prof. Andrew George is completely
silent.

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

When body emits Light Energy, the mass of body decreases by L/c2.
It clearly states he does not have any idea of Einsteinâ€™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 =
Lv2/2c2
(2)
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 Î¦ has numerous values. So much so Ajay Sharma
 has carefully justified the same in his publications.
But Dr Andrew George 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
publications.

Prof. George Andrew has justified Sharmaâ€™s work
completely, but did not solve the equation. In his paper Ajay Sharma
 has solved equation further for Î¦ =89â—¦, cos89â—¦ = 0.01745.
Thus eq.(4) becomes

Ma v2 /2 â€“ Mbv2 /2 = -Lv2/2c2 + 0.01745 LÎ³v/c
Ma â€“ Mb = -L/c2 + 0.03490 LÎ³/cv

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

It is not correct prediction from Einsteinâ€™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 Georgeâ€™s work supports Sharmaâ€™s work that Einsteinâ€™s Sep 1905
derivation is true under special conditions only, not in general.
Acknowledgement

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

References

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

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

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

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

 Sharma A. Abstract Book , Physics 2005 â€“ A Century after
Einstein (Institute of Physics, Bristol England ) University of
Warwick pp 144 2005

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

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

 Sharma, A. Journal of Gravitational Physics, Vol 1 No 1 9-31
(2007)

 Sharma, A. Einsteinâ€™s E=mc2 Generalized, Raider Publishing
International, New York, USA 2007

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mc2...6380637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190733223&sr=1-1

 George , A Galilean Electrodynamics , Vol. 18 No 4. 80 (2007)

L

#### Lew

ross said:
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.