On Feb 17, 1:15 am, "sciencec...@yahoo.co.uk" <sciencec...@sify.com
wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:20 am,
rpas...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
On Feb 16, 6:21 pm, "sciencec...@yahoo.co.uk" <sciencec...@sify.com
wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:38 pm,
rpas...@eas.slu.edu wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, "sciencec...@yahoo.co.uk" <sciencec...@sify.com
wrote:
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that
----
Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay
----
It is evident from book
Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise
("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904)
in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904.
In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned
About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them.
And gave equation E=mc2
E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated.
Details at
www.ajayonline.us
Ajay Sharma
You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often
enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply
mathematics.
Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to
have "completed" Einstein's work.
In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of
errors.
Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's
momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the
same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with
misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work.
Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found
errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is
"completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's
work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with
elementary errors.
The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma
simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law
of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so-
called "discovery"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Momentum is conserved in my paper.
It is taught in 11th class.
Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained
the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY
NAME AND INSTITUTION
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein...
Also at
www.ajayonline.us
AJAY SHARMA
I replied and you still haven't fixed your simple math errors. Once
again repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn't fix the
problem. Not only do you not understand physics you cannot do simple
math.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Right
rpas...@eas.slu.edu
Dr R PASKEN
Tell me what is mistake?
What mathematics mistake?. What is physics mistake?
Everything is correct.
Tell, how and why there is mistake?
The law of conservation of momentum is COMPLETELY applicable
and obeyed in my derivations.
In June 2006, some lady objected, that
CONSERVATION OF MOMEMTUM IS NOT obeyed in the paper.
Probably she was undergraduate physics student or even in school.
She remained NEAMELESS in the posts.
She also posted a WRONG article (even 11th physics knowledge
was not shown). The same article number of times posted by you.
I specifically wrote an article here (addressed to you by name).
I appealed you for discussion.
But you never responded.
What is the reason? The question of science must be discussed
Scientifically.
You have again posted that misunderstanding.
I again point out in
www.ajayonline.us
Discussion II Article I Q.5 & Q 6
explains the law of conservation and how it is obeyed .
I too big 6-8 page explanation for this.
www.ajayonline.us
Ajay Sharma
Once again from a fellow physicist:
"You mean the one that Ajay Sharma has been peddling for years at all
the imaginable conferences. The one that he tried to wallpaper over
all the imaginable links in all the imaginable forums. The one in
which he takes the momentum variation caused by recoil as mass
variation. Yes, a very interesting piece of junk. "
or possibly another fellow physicist:
"He makes a gross error right off the bat, at equation (13) on page
201.
The author has as a starting point a famous Einstein paper seen here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
In it, Einstein derives the relationship between the mass and the
energy variation. Einstein uses two symmetrical em waves radiating
from the same body as it can be seen. The immediate consequence of the
symmetry is that there is no momentum variation.
By conreast, Ajay Sharma, uses only one em wave. As such, instead of
producing mass variation, the em radiation produces momentum variation
thru recoil. A. Sharma incorrectly attributes the momentum variation
to a "mass increase"
More specifically:
Ajay Sharma writes:
"Thus energy is emitted due to ‘annihilation of mass’ in Einstein’s
derivation body remain at rest,
When I consider one wave is emitted at 89o , then body remain at
rest . In this case equation is.
(ii) When one wave is emitted say at angle of 89o
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13)
Ma ( mass of body after emission) = 0.03490L/cv – L/c2 + Mb ( mass of
body before emission)
which implies mass of body increases when light energy is emitted. It
is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter. "
Well, the term – 0.03490L/c is not mass variation , it is momentum
variation, it has the dimension mv. Einstein used the simple approach
in his paper ( "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-
Content?") of :
1. Using TWO em waves in 180 degress opposition (in order to make sure
that there is NO RECOIL)
2. divinding both the right hand and the left hand of his expression
by v^2.
This is why the term 0.03490L/c can have any sign in the Ajay Sharma
paper.
To prove this, if one changes the direction of the wave in the
"experiment" :
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 +v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1+ 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = + 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 (13)
Contrast this with your earliear expression:
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2
The "mass variation" has changed sign with the change in the direction
of the em radiation. This is obvious crackpottery."
Is this detailed enough?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
