astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.



Main
Date: 04 Nov 2006 07:05:44
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


Einstein=E2=80=99s E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl=
and
Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?


The French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was the first to
formulate a law of conservation of matter in chemical reactions. The
concept of inter-conversion of mass and energy has been studied by
various scientists qualitatively, even before Einstein.

1=2E Newton has quoted in his book =E2=80=98Opticks=E2=80=99 in 1704 that
"Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
After about 200 years Einstein derived mathematical equation for
Newton=E2=80=99s perception i.e. =E2=88=86L =3D=E2=88=86mc2 where =E2=88=86=
L is light energy
emitted when mass =E2=88=86m is annihilated and is speed of light. It is the
rarest coincidence in between Newton=E2=80=99s hypothesis and Einstein=E2=
=80=99s
mathematical derivation.

2=2E S. Tolver Preston proposed that a vast amount of energy can be
produced from matter in his book Physics of the Ether in 1875. Preston
determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a
height dmc2.=EF=82=B5of 1.9 miles. This deduction yields dE

3=2E Jules Henri Poincar=C3=A9 in 1900 applied the calculations in a recoil
process and reached at the conclusion in the form, mv =3D (E/c2)c. From
the viewpoint of dimensional analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a
=E2=80=98mass=E2=80=99 associated with radiation, which yields E=3Dmc2.

4=2E Olinto De Pretto speculated E=3Dmc2, implying that when v=3Dc , then E=
=3D
mv2 becomes E=3Dmc2 , in 1903-04. But Pretto neither gave specific
derivation nor mathematical calculations. Bartocci claimed that
Einstein was aware of De Pretto=E2=80=99s speculation of E=3D=E2=88=86mc2 ,=
which was
published about a year before.

5=2E Fritz Hasenohrl in 1904, concluded: =E2=80=9Cto the mechanical mass of=
our
system must be added an apparent mass which is given by, m=3D8E/3c2 where
E is the energy of the radiation.=E2=80=9D In a later paper he further
improved result that mass exchanged is, m=3D4E/3c2. Ebenezer Cunningham
in 1914 in the book The Principles of Relativity showed that F.
Hasen=C3=B6hrl, had made a slight error in his calculations. If errors are
removed then the mass exchanged is m =3DE/c2 or E =3D mc2. Thus in this
regard Hasenohrl=E2=80=99s contribution is the most significant, before
Einstein.

6=2E Frederick Soddi and M. Henri Becquerel both have predicted that in
radioactive emissions the mass of body decreases i.e. energy of
radiations is at the cost of mass.

7=2E Max Planck in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
"confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein=E2=80=99s approach at
all. Planck derived an expression m-M=3D E/c2, for heat energy and mass
and interpreted that

=E2=80=9D The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or emission of
heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
divided by square of speed of light.=E2=80=9D

Planck acknowledged Einstein=E2=80=99s previous derivation but did not agree
with correctness of Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation.
Should these scientists be given credit of doing basic work in
assisting the discovery of E=3Dmc2 ?

Today, E=3Dmc2 is regarded a sole province of Einstein.
Complied from various sources.
If some scientists is left , please add. I think one is JJ Thomson
Main sources for compilation

100 Years of E=3Dmc2
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554


_________________
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554





 
Date: 04 Nov 2006 08:41:26
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



RMOLLISE wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
> >
> >
>
> Hi:
>
> Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
> posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
> group where it will be welcome.
>
> Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.

-----------------------------
Hi
Is this group your PERSONAL PROPERTY ?
If so then let us know.
E=mc2 is the most basic law of sciene which is used in all branches of
science diretly or indirectly.
AJAY SHARMA
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554



  
Date: 05 Nov 2006 04:12:59
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>
>>AJAY SHARMA wrote:
>>
>>>Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
>>>Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>>Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
>>posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
>>group where it will be welcome.
>>
>>Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
>
>
> -----------------------------
> Hi
> Is this group your PERSONAL PROPERTY ?
> If so then let us know.
> E=mc2 is the most basic law of sciene which is used in all branches of
> science diretly or indirectly.
> AJAY SHARMA
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
>
No. You just put yourself in with "pertified bones"
"I am better then Einstein", "we never went to the moon",
etc etc etc etc......


 
Date: 04 Nov 2006 07:16:45
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
>
>

Hi:

Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
group where it will be welcome.

Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.



  
Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:02:45
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162653405.596395.158920@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
>> Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
>> Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
>>
>>
>
> Hi:
>
> Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response ...

RMOLLISE's response proves you wrong. ;)

--
Hilton Evans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lat +42° 11' 07"
Lon -71° 04' 35"
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chempensoftware.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevans33050/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm





  
Date: 05 Nov 2006 02:14:31
From: Impeach Bush
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary




RMOLLISE wrote:

> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
> >
> >
>
> Hi:
>
> Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
> posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
> group where it will be welcome.
>

he's everywhere not welcome anywhere so why doyouwaste your time?
he's a troll -


>
> Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.



 
Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:52:59
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
>
> -----------------------------
> Hi
> Is this group your PERSONAL PROPERTY ?
> If so then let us know.
> E=mc2 is the most basic law of sciene which is used in all branches of


Hi:

If you'd bothered to read the charter of this group (or those of the
others you SPAMMED), you'd know your "theories" are completley off
topic. But I guess you just don't care, do you?

Well, rest assured, no one here is impressed.



  
Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:17:18
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162669979.784204.278300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
>> RMOLLISE wrote:
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> Hi
>> Is this group your PERSONAL PROPERTY ?
>> If so then let us know.
>> E=mc2 is the most basic law of sciene which is used in all branches of
>
>
> Hi:
>
> If you'd bothered to read the charter of this group (or those of the
> others you SPAMMED), you'd know your "theories" are completley off
> topic. But I guess you just don't care, do you?
>
> Well, rest assured, no one here is impressed.
>

So unimpressed, in fact, that *it* entered my killfile LONG ago...

And the only way *it* shows UP now, is when someone ELSE DRAGS IT UP...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21




 
Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:47:37
From:
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
> > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
> > group where it will be welcome.
> >
> > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
>

Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understand
your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
can be educated



 
Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:49:22
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


You don't seem to have read the charter for sci.astro.amateur. The
material you are posting is somewhat off-topic, as it is more a somewhat
questionable version of physics than having to do with the hobby of
amateur astronomy. Here is the charter.

The sci.astro.amateur charter
-----------------------------
The original version was written by Ken Kirksey
<kkirksey@world.std.com >:

What Is sci.astro.amateur?

sci.astro.amateur is forum for amateur astronomers to discuss topics of
mutual interest, with a focus on astronomical observing.

What Are Suitable Topics For sci.astro.amateur?

Discussion in sci.astro.amateur includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, the following topics:

Observing
Using the naked eye, binoculars, or telescopes
The Moon, Planets, Stars, The Sun, Comets, Deep Sky
Objects, Constellations, et. al.

Equipment
Choosing Telescopes/Binoculars
Choosing Accessories (Finders, Drives, Eyepieces, Filters,
Observatories, etc.)
Building Telescopes, Backyard Observatories, etc.

Astrophotography
Traditional
CCD
Image Processing

Astronomy Software
Planetarium Programs
Deep Sky Programs
Observatory Programs
Educational Programs

Tips & Techniques for Amateur Astronomers

Literature covering the topics listed above

What Topics Are *Not* Suitable for sci.astro.amateur?

Anything of a highly technical, theoretical, or cosmological nature <G >.
Seriously, one of the major reasons that sci.astro.amateur was created
was that people were tired of wading through all the black hole, origin
& fate of the universe, Steven Hawking

 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 09:58:18
From:
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > RMOLLISE wrote:
> > > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > > Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> > > > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi:
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
> > > > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
> > > > group where it will be welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
> > >
> >
> > Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understand
> > your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
> > can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
> > theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
> > normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
> > the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
> > can be educated
>
>
> ==============
> Dr PASKEN
> You have earlier made some comments on my paper that momentum is not
> conserved in my paper.
> I REQUESTED (in vain) IN LARGE NUMBER OF TIMES AND POSTED MEAGES ON
> TENS OF FORUMS TO JUTIFY YOUR CLAIM.
> Your name and address was also stated.
> BUT TILL DATE IY ISNOT DONE.
> It is not fair to abuse to others for your limitations.
> FURHER YOU ARE MAKING SOME UNSCIETIFIC COMMENTS
> ( on the basis of ethnic gropus)
> Kindly don't to it. These can be counter productive.
> Well ,
> I give you my personal email
> mc2.book@gmail.com
> You an discuss any matter on it.
> My work is published after peer review and can be challnged in
> journals.
> 100 Years of E=mc2
> (Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
> USA)
>
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
>
> AJAY SHARMA

You just do not understand do you? Not only have I have repeatedly
pointed out your errors that indicate your lack of understanding of
basic physics, but so have numerous other posters. These posters have
tried in vain to show you that you do not understand simple physics.
YOU have refered to these people as DONKEYS. When a poster used a play
on words in his posting name (Dr. InPain@CERN) you did not understand
the play on words and were foolish enough to contact CERN. At that
point you called the poster a donkey. When Rambus2005 pointed out your
errors you refered to the Rambus2005 as a donkey. When I praise the
Indian education system you make claims that I am making ethnic slurs.
I simply pointed out that YOU were poorly educated. No ethnic slur
there! YOU have repeatedly failed to list ANY peer-reviewed journals
and YOU have failed to respond to any of the discussion of the
fundamental errors with anything but racial slurs.

Once again here is where your errors are:

http://gase1234.tripod.com/ASharma.pdf



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 09:14:27
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



Dono wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> <self advertisment snipped>
>
> But it is well known that the paper that you keep self-advertising is
> all wrong, idiot.
---------------------------------------
Dono
Can you prove it wrong ?
I will stop posting.

If somebody disagree then one can write to Editor Physics Essays
addressing the following issues.

What is Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 1905 paper?
What are conditions under which it is derived?
What is Planck=E2=80=99s observation regarding it?
Under what conditions experimentally it holds good?
Why Einstein did not generalize the same?
How to generalize it under all conditions?
What is Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s Interpretation?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s paper is different from Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 19=
05
paper.
How Editors/referees who have published it are WRONG?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s interpretation is incorrect (if it)?
What are the correct interpretations AND EQAUTIONS?
My paper answers all above questions.
It follows from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation under legitimate conditions,(=
in
some cases) that
when Light Energy is Emitted , mass of body INCREASES.
It is incorrect deduction from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation.

Part IV
References.

References of Einstein=E2=80=99s work
.
A=2EEinstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein=E2=80=99s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s work

My work is available at
A=2E Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1=2E Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3=2E A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4=2E A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5=2E A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6=2E A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow, (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Book 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554

( book will be published in Dec 2006 , by NOVA Science in New York ,
USA)

AJAY SHARMA 5 NOV 2006



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 08:15:35
From: Dono
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



AJAY SHARMA wrote:
<self advertisment snipped >

But it is well known that the paper that you keep self-advertising is
all wrong, idiot.



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 01:52:04
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > RMOLLISE wrote:
> > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> > > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to your
> > > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some other
> > > group where it will be welcome.
> > >
> > > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
> >
>
> Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understand
> your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
> can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
> theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
> normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
> the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
> can be educated


==============
Dr PASKEN
You have earlier made some comments on my paper that momentum is not
conserved in my paper.
I REQUESTED (in vain) IN LARGE NUMBER OF TIMES AND POSTED MEAGES ON
TENS OF FORUMS TO JUTIFY YOUR CLAIM.
Your name and address was also stated.
BUT TILL DATE IY ISNOT DONE.
It is not fair to abuse to others for your limitations.
FURHER YOU ARE MAKING SOME UNSCIETIFIC COMMENTS
( on the basis of ethnic gropus)
Kindly don't to it. These can be counter productive.
Well ,
I give you my personal email
mc2.book@gmail.com
You an discuss any matter on it.
My work is published after peer review and can be challnged in
journals.
100 Years of E=mc2
(Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
USA)

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554

AJAY SHARMA



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 01:40:33
From: fakfondo
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > RMOLLISE wrote:
> > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > Einstein's E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl=
and
> > > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response to yo=
ur
> > > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some oth=
er
> > > group where it will be welcome.
> > >
> > > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
> >
>
> Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understand
> your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
> can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
> theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
> normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
> the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
> can be educated

----------- Dr Robert Pasken , Kindly refer to you
post--------------------

Kindly justify YOUR SELF .

rpasken@eas.slu.edu , You have made comments that Momentum is not
Conserved in my PAPER. It is not CORRECT. It is explained in 100 Years
of E=3Dmc2

rpasken@eas.slu.edu Robert Pasken

Department of Earth and AtmosphericSciences
Saint Louis University
3507 Laclede Avenue
St.Louis, MO 63103

See how Momentum is conserved in my paper. All references are given in
the end.
Part I
General meaning , explained in 11th class Physics.
The law of momentum conservation,
* In an isolated system, the momentum of system must be conserved.*

Mathematically implies that
Initial Momentum =3D Final Momentum
mu=3Dmv (1)
As mass remains same in classical mechanics.
So u=3Dv
which is Newton=E2=80=99s First law of motion.

Application of momentum conservation.
When body emits energy ( in this cases light energy)
then it recoils .Thus it is used to calculate the velocity of recoil.
It can be applied to following two cases.

------ Light bullet fired from TOY Gun, system remains at rest.
( body does not recoil with noticeable velocity, it tends to recoil)
The velocity cam be calculated but may be of the order of
1/100000000000000000000000000000000000 m/s or 10-^40m/s
This case resembles with Einstein=E2=80=99s two waves of equal energy emitt=
ed
in opposite directions.

-----Shot fired from gun, gun moves backward.
the velocity can be calculated from conservation of momentum i.e.
initial momentum =3Dfinal momentum
Vrecoil =3D mv/M ~ 5m/s (say)
Thus after emission of energy BODY MAY REMAIN AT REST OR MOVE, the
Momentum is Conserved. It is basic physics of 11th standard.
If some one does not want to understand this then it his problem.
Einstein did all calculation under Classical conditions of velocity (v
<<c, her v is relative velocity between two systems i.e. system in
which body emits light and second system in which energy is measured.

Part II
The law of conservation of momentum is obeyed in my paper.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554


When two waves are emitted. The body recoils with velocity v , with
magnitude of the order of 10^-32 m/s i.e.
V (recoil)=3D1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
It can be easily calculated.

When two waves of different energies are emitted. If body emits two
light waves of slightly different energies i.e. 0.5001L and 0.4999L
(Einstein has used light waves of energy 0.5L and 0.5L) in opposite
directions. Now using the law of conservation of momentum, it can be
easily justified that in this case body remains at rest.
Let the body of mass 10kg emits light energy in two waves in visible
region equal to 7.9512=C3=9710^-19 J, this energy corresponds to TWO light
waves in visible region having wavelength 5000=C2=BAA or energy, 2hc/=CE=BB=
or
7=2E9512=C3=9710^-19 J.
Let towards the observer the body emits light energy 0.5001L i.e.
3=2E97639512=C3=9710^-19 J i.e. will have momentum ( p1 =3D E/c)
1=2E32546504=C3=9710^-27 m/s.
Secondly, the body emits light wave of energy 0.4999L i.e.
3=2E97480488=C3=9710^-19 J, away from the observer (=CF=86=3D 180=C2=BA) i.=
e=2E will have
momentum ( p2 =3D E/c) 1.32493496=C3=9710^-27 m/s. Let us assume that when
the body emits light waves of energy and moves (if it actually does)
with velocity Vb , then according to law of conservation of momentum we
get
0 =3D p1 +p2 +MbVb or Vb =3D -(p1 +p2) /Mb =3D =E2=80=935.3=C3=9710^-32 m/s=
(2)
0 =3D p1 +p2 +MbVb or Vb =3D -(p1 +p2) /Mb =3D =E2=80=935.3=C3=9710^-32 m/s=
(3)
Thus conservation of momentum requires that body should move with
velocity =E2=80=935.3=C3=9710^-32 m/s opposite to observer. Thus body will =
tend
to move with velocity 5.3=C3=9710^-32 m/s ( away from the observer) which
is immeasurably small by all means, hence the body remains at rest. Due
to this uniform relative velocity v of the system (=CE=BE, =CE=B7, =CE=B6 )=
will
not change, if body moves then v will vary accordingly.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DEinstein=E2=80=99s Sep 1905 paper=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The first and basic equation in Einstein=E2=80=99s paper is
l* =3D l{1 =E2=80=93 v/c cos =CF=86 } /=E2=88=9A[1 =E2=80=93 v2 /c2] (1)
In eq.(1) v is the relative velocity between light emitting body and
the measuring system i.e. system (=CE=BE, =CE=B7, =CE=B6 ). If body moves a=
fter
emission with velocity v=E2=80=99 away from the observer, then relative
velocity will be v+v=E2=80=99 (say V). Thus in this case eq.(1) becomes
=E2=84=93* =3D =E2=84=93{1 =E2=80=93 (v+v=E2=80=99) cos =CF=86/c } /=E2=88=
=9A[1 =E2=80=93 (v+v=E2=80=99)2 /c2] (1a)
The rest of the calculations remain the same. Thus Einstein=E2=80=99s
derivation is also valid if the body moves, Einstein has considered the
simplest case when velocity v=E2=80=99 is zero (V=3D v+v=E2=80=99 =3Dv), wh=
ich is
special case. Also experimentally the law of inter conversion of mass
energy holds good in all possible cases.

Hence you cannot say that LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOEMTUM IS NOT TAKEN
IN ACCOUNT IN MY PAPER.
It is your MISPERCEPTION.

AJAY SHARMA 2ND Oct 2006

References of Einstein=E2=80=99s work
.
A=2EEinstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein=E2=80=99s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s work

My work is available at
A=2E Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of M; and its applications in General=EF=81=84E =3D Ac2
=EF=81=84Generalized Mass-Energy Equation physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 01:29:34
From: fakfondo
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



Impeach Bush wrote:
> GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOUR MORON!
>
>
>
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
>
> > Einstein=E2=80=99s E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasen=
ohrl and
> > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?
> >
> > The French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was the first to
> > formulate a law of conservation of matter in chemical reactions. The
> > concept of inter-conversion of mass and energy has been studied by
> > various scientists qualitatively, even before Einstein.
> >
> > 1. Newton has quoted in his book =E2=80=98Opticks=E2=80=99 in 1704 that
> > "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
> > After about 200 years Einstein derived mathematical equation for
> > Newton=E2=80=99s perception i.e. =E2=88=86L =3D=E2=88=86mc2 where =E2=
=88=86L is light energy
> > emitted when mass =E2=88=86m is annihilated and is speed of light. It i=
s the
> > rarest coincidence in between Newton=E2=80=99s hypothesis and Einstein=
=E2=80=99s
> > mathematical derivation.
> >
> > 2. S. Tolver Preston proposed that a vast amount of energy can be
> > produced from matter in his book Physics of the Ether in 1875. Preston
> > determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a
> > height dmc2.=EF=82=B5of 1.9 miles. This deduction yields dE
> >
> > 3. Jules Henri Poincar=C3=A9 in 1900 applied the calculations in a reco=
il
> > process and reached at the conclusion in the form, mv =3D (E/c2)c. From
> > the viewpoint of dimensional analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a
> > =E2=80=98mass=E2=80=99 associated with radiation, which yields E=3Dmc2.
> >
> > 4. Olinto De Pretto speculated E=3Dmc2, implying that when v=3Dc , then=
E=3D
> > mv2 becomes E=3Dmc2 , in 1903-04. But Pretto neither gave specific
> > derivation nor mathematical calculations. Bartocci claimed that
> > Einstein was aware of De Pretto=E2=80=99s speculation of E=3D=E2=88=86m=
c2 , which was
> > published about a year before.
> >
> > 5. Fritz Hasenohrl in 1904, concluded: =E2=80=9Cto the mechanical mass =
of our
> > system must be added an apparent mass which is given by, m=3D8E/3c2 whe=
re
> > E is the energy of the radiation.=E2=80=9D In a later paper he further
> > improved result that mass exchanged is, m=3D4E/3c2. Ebenezer Cunningham
> > in 1914 in the book The Principles of Relativity showed that F.
> > Hasen=C3=B6hrl, had made a slight error in his calculations. If errors =
are
> > removed then the mass exchanged is m =3DE/c2 or E =3D mc2. Thus in this
> > regard Hasenohrl=E2=80=99s contribution is the most significant, before
> > Einstein.
> >
> > 6. Frederick Soddi and M. Henri Becquerel both have predicted that in
> > radioactive emissions the mass of body decreases i.e. energy of
> > radiations is at the cost of mass.
> >
> > 7. Max Planck in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
> > "confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein=E2=80=99s approac=
h at
> > all. Planck derived an expression m-M=3D E/c2, for heat energy and mass
> > and interpreted that
> >
> > =E2=80=9D The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or emission=
of
> > heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
> > divided by square of speed of light.=E2=80=9D
> >
> > Planck acknowledged Einstein=E2=80=99s previous derivation but did not =
agree
> > with correctness of Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation.
> > Should these scientists be given credit of doing basic work in
> > assisting the discovery of E=3Dmc2 ?
> >
> > Today, E=3Dmc2 is regarded a sole province of Einstein.
> > Complied from various sources.
> > If some scientists is left , please add. I think one is JJ Thomson
> > Main sources for compilation
> >
> > 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_3=
24&products_id=3D4554
> >
> > _________________
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_3=
24&products_id=3D4554
>
> --------------01B7277BADBEEE966D126B0D
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 4251
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOUR MORON!
> <br> 
> <br> 
> <p>AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=3DCITE>Einstein�s E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton ,=
De
> Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> <br>Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?
> <p>The French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was the first to
> <br>formulate a law of conservation of matter in chemical reactions. The
> <br>concept of inter-conversion of mass and energy has been studied by
> <br>various scientists qualitatively, even before Einstein.
> <p>1. Newton has quoted in his book �Opticks�
> in 1704 that
> <br>"Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
> <br>After about 200 years Einstein derived mathematical equation for
> <br>Newtonâ€?s perception i.e. â??L =3Dâ??mc2 where
> â??L is light energy
> <br>emitted when mass â??m is annihilated and is speed of light.
> It is the
> <br>rarest coincidence in between Newton�s hypothesis and
> Einstein�s
> <br>mathematical derivation.
> <p>2. S. Tolver Preston proposed that a vast amount of energy can be
> <br>produced from matter in his book Physics of the Ether in 1875. Preston
> <br>determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a
> <br>height  dmc2.ï?µof 1.9 miles. This deduction yields
> dE
> <p>3. Jules Henri Poincaré in 1900 applied the calculations
> in a recoil
> <br>process and reached at the conclusion in the form, mv =3D (E/c2)c. Fr=
om
> <br>the viewpoint of dimensional analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a
> <br>�mass� associated with radiation, which yie=
lds
> E=3Dmc2.
> <p>4. Olinto De Pretto speculated E=3Dmc2, implying that when v=3Dc , then
> E=3D
> <br>mv2 becomes E=3Dmc2 , in 1903-04. But Pretto neither gave specific
> <br>derivation nor mathematical calculations. Bartocci claimed that
> <br>Einstein was aware of De Pretto�s speculation of E=3D&ac=
irc;??mc2
> , which was
> <br>published about a year before.
> <p>5. Fritz Hasenohrl in 1904, concluded: �to the mechanical
> mass of our
> <br>system must be added an apparent mass which is given by, m=3D8E/3c2 w=
here
> <br>E is the energy of the radiation.� In a later paper he
> further
> <br>improved result that mass exchanged is, m=3D4E/3c2. Ebenezer Cunningh=
am
> <br>in 1914 in the book The Principles of Relativity showed that F.
> <br>Hasenöhrl, had made a slight error in his calculations.
> If errors are
> <br>removed then the mass exchanged is m =3DE/c2 or E =3D mc2. Thus in th=
is
> <br>regard Hasenohrl�s contribution is the most significant,
> before
> <br>Einstein.
> <p>6. Frederick Soddi and M. Henri Becquerel both have predicted that in
> <br>radioactive emissions the mass of body decreases i.e. energy of
> <br>radiations is at the cost of mass.
> <p>7. Max Planck in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
> <br>"confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein�s
> approach at
> <br>all. Planck derived an expression m-M=3D E/c2, for heat energy and ma=
ss
> <br>and interpreted that
> <p>� The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or
> emission of
> <br>heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
> <br>divided by square of speed of light.�
> <p>Planck acknowledged Einstein�s previous derivation but
> did not agree
> <br>with correctness of Einstein�s derivation.
> <br>Should these scientists be given credit of doing basic work in
> <br>assisting the discovery of E=3Dmc2 ?
> <p>Today, E=3Dmc2 is regarded a sole province of Einstein.
> <br>Complied from various sources.
> <br>If some scientists is left , please add. I think one is JJ Thomson
> <br>Main sources for compilation
> <p>100 Years of E=3Dmc2
> <br><a href=3D"https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cP=
ath=3D23_48_324&products_id=3D4554" >https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/=
product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&products_id=3D4554</a >
> <p>_________________
> <br><a href=3D"https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cP=
ath=3D23_48_324&products_id=3D4554" >https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/=
product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&products_id=3D4554</a ></blockquote>
> </html>
>
> --------------01B7277BADBEEE966D126B0D--

Impeach Bush <foxn...@ai5.net >

Are you fucked enough, Come to street,
YOU WILL BE FUCKED TO SATISFACTION.



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 02:15:37
From: Impeach Bush
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



--------------01B7277BADBEEE966D126B0D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOUR MORON!



AJAY SHARMA wrote:

> Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
> Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
>
> The French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was the first to
> formulate a law of conservation of matter in chemical reactions. The
> concept of inter-conversion of mass and energy has been studied by
> various scientists qualitatively, even before Einstein.
>
> 1. Newton has quoted in his book ‘Opticks’ in 1704 that
> "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
> After about 200 years Einstein derived mathematical equation for
> Newton’s perception i.e. ∆L =∆mc2 where ∆L is light energy
> emitted when mass ∆m is annihilated and is speed of light. It is the
> rarest coincidence in between Newton’s hypothesis and Einstein’s
> mathematical derivation.
>
> 2. S. Tolver Preston proposed that a vast amount of energy can be
> produced from matter in his book Physics of the Ether in 1875. Preston
> determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a
> height dmc2.ï‚”of 1.9 miles. This deduction yields dE
>
> 3. Jules Henri Poincaré in 1900 applied the calculations in a recoil
> process and reached at the conclusion in the form, mv = (E/c2)c. From
> the viewpoint of dimensional analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a
> ‘mass’ associated with radiation, which yields E=mc2.
>
> 4. Olinto De Pretto speculated E=mc2, implying that when v=c , then E=
> mv2 becomes E=mc2 , in 1903-04. But Pretto neither gave specific
> derivation nor mathematical calculations. Bartocci claimed that
> Einstein was aware of De Pretto’s speculation of E=∆mc2 , which was
> published about a year before.
>
> 5. Fritz Hasenohrl in 1904, concluded: “to the mechanical mass of our
> system must be added an apparent mass which is given by, m=8E/3c2 where
> E is the energy of the radiation.” In a later paper he further
> improved result that mass exchanged is, m=4E/3c2. Ebenezer Cunningham
> in 1914 in the book The Principles of Relativity showed that F.
> Hasenöhrl, had made a slight error in his calculations. If errors are
> removed then the mass exchanged is m =E/c2 or E = mc2. Thus in this
> regard Hasenohrl’s contribution is the most significant, before
> Einstein.
>
> 6. Frederick Soddi and M. Henri Becquerel both have predicted that in
> radioactive emissions the mass of body decreases i.e. energy of
> radiations is at the cost of mass.
>
> 7. Max Planck in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
> "confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein’s approach at
> all. Planck derived an expression m-M= E/c2, for heat energy and mass
> and interpreted that
>
> ” The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or emission of
> heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
> divided by square of speed of light.”
>
> Planck acknowledged Einstein’s previous derivation but did not agree
> with correctness of Einstein’s derivation.
> Should these scientists be given credit of doing basic work in
> assisting the discovery of E=mc2 ?
>
> Today, E=mc2 is regarded a sole province of Einstein.
> Complied from various sources.
> If some scientists is left , please add. I think one is JJ Thomson
> Main sources for compilation
>
> 100 Years of E=mc2
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554
>
> _________________
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554

--------------01B7277BADBEEE966D126B0D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOUR MORON!
<br > 
<br > 
<p >AJAY SHARMA wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De
Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and
<br >Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?
<p >The French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) was the first to
<br >formulate a law of conservation of matter in chemical reactions. The
<br >concept of inter-conversion of mass and energy has been studied by
<br >various scientists qualitatively, even before Einstein.
<p >1. Newton has quoted in his book ‘Opticks’
in 1704 that
<br >"Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...",
<br >After about 200 years Einstein derived mathematical equation for
<br >Newton’s perception i.e. ∆L =∆mc2 where
∆L is light energy
<br >emitted when mass ∆m is annihilated and is speed of light.
It is the
<br >rarest coincidence in between Newton’s hypothesis and
Einstein’s
<br >mathematical derivation.
<p >2. S. Tolver Preston proposed that a vast amount of energy can be
<br >produced from matter in his book Physics of the Ether in 1875. Preston
<br >determined that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a
<br >height  dmc2.of 1.9 miles. This deduction yields
dE
<p >3. Jules Henri Poincaré in 1900 applied the calculations
in a recoil
<br >process and reached at the conclusion in the form, mv = (E/c2)c. From
<br >the viewpoint of dimensional analysis, E/c2 takes on the role of a
<br >‘mass’ associated with radiation, which yields
E=mc2.
<p >4. Olinto De Pretto speculated E=mc2, implying that when v=c , then
E=
<br >mv2 becomes E=mc2 , in 1903-04. But Pretto neither gave specific
<br >derivation nor mathematical calculations. Bartocci claimed that
<br >Einstein was aware of De Pretto’s speculation of E=∆mc2
, which was
<br >published about a year before.
<p >5. Fritz Hasenohrl in 1904, concluded: “to the mechanical
mass of our
<br >system must be added an apparent mass which is given by, m=8E/3c2 where
<br >E is the energy of the radiation.” In a later paper he
further
<br >improved result that mass exchanged is, m=4E/3c2. Ebenezer Cunningham
<br >in 1914 in the book The Principles of Relativity showed that F.
<br >Hasenöhrl, had made a slight error in his calculations.
If errors are
<br >removed then the mass exchanged is m =E/c2 or E = mc2. Thus in this
<br >regard Hasenohrl’s contribution is the most significant,
before
<br >Einstein.
<p >6. Frederick Soddi and M. Henri Becquerel both have predicted that in
<br >radioactive emissions the mass of body decreases i.e. energy of
<br >radiations is at the cost of mass.
<p >7. Max Planck in 1907 made an in-depth investigation of the energy
<br >"confined" within a body, but he did not use Einstein’s
approach at
<br >all. Planck derived an expression m-M= E/c2, for heat energy and mass
<br >and interpreted that
<p >” The inertia mass of body is altered by absorption or
emission of
<br >heat energy. The increments of mass of body are equal to heat energy
<br >divided by square of speed of light.”
<p >Planck acknowledged Einstein’s previous derivation but
did not agree
<br >with correctness of Einstein’s derivation.
<br >Should these scientists be given credit of doing basic work in
<br >assisting the discovery of E=mc2 ?
<p >Today, E=mc2 is regarded a sole province of Einstein.
<br >Complied from various sources.
<br >If some scientists is left , please add. I think one is JJ Thomson
<br >Main sources for compilation
<p >100 Years of E=mc2
<br ><a href="https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554">https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554</a>
<p >_________________
<br ><a href="https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554">https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_48_324&products_id=4554</a></blockquote>
</html >

--------------01B7277BADBEEE966D126B0D--



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:37:01
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > RMOLLISE wrote:
> > > > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > > > Einstein's E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasen=
ohrl and
> > > > > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response t=
o your
> > > > > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some=
other
> > > > > group where it will be welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understa=
nd
> > > your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
> > > can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
> > > theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
> > > normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
> > > the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
> > > can be educated
> >
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Dr PASKEN
> > You have earlier made some comments on my paper that momentum is not
> > conserved in my paper.
> > I REQUESTED (in vain) IN LARGE NUMBER OF TIMES AND POSTED MEAGES ON
> > TENS OF FORUMS TO JUTIFY YOUR CLAIM.
> > Your name and address was also stated.
> > BUT TILL DATE IY ISNOT DONE.
> > It is not fair to abuse to others for your limitations.
> > FURHER YOU ARE MAKING SOME UNSCIETIFIC COMMENTS
> > ( on the basis of ethnic gropus)
> > Kindly don't to it. These can be counter productive.
> > Well ,
> > I give you my personal email
> > mc2.book@gmail.com
> > You an discuss any matter on it.
> > My work is published after peer review and can be challnged in
> > journals.
> > 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
> > (Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
> > USA)
> >
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_3=
24&products_id=3D4554
> >
> > AJAY SHARMA
>
> You just do not understand do you? Not only have I have repeatedly
> pointed out your errors that indicate your lack of understanding of
> basic physics, but so have numerous other posters. These posters have
> tried in vain to show you that you do not understand simple physics.
> YOU have refered to these people as DONKEYS. When a poster used a play
> on words in his posting name (Dr. InPain@CERN) you did not understand
> the play on words and were foolish enough to contact CERN. At that
> point you called the poster a donkey. When Rambus2005 pointed out your
> errors you refered to the Rambus2005 as a donkey. When I praise the
> Indian education system you make claims that I am making ethnic slurs.
> I simply pointed out that YOU were poorly educated. No ethnic slur
> there! YOU have repeatedly failed to list ANY peer-reviewed journals
> and YOU have failed to respond to any of the discussion of the
> fundamental errors with anything but racial slurs.
>
> Once again here is where your errors are:
>
> http://gase1234.tripod.com/ASharma.pdf
=3D=3D=3D=3DAjay Sharma responds to Dr Pasken=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


Dr PASKEN,
Robert Pasken
Department of Earth and AtmosphericSciences
Saint Louis University
3507 Laclede Avenue
St.Louis, MO 63103
Part I
Your OBJETION was momentum is not conserved in my paper.
It is conserved, you are absolutely wrong. It is simple interpretation
of 11th class physics.
I have pasted my reply in number of posts, but you failed to respond. I
will again put it here..
See one link
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein-is-in=
ventor-of-second-postulate.htm

Kindly address this issue. Also see that I am polite in my posts , if
someone goes out of way , then things are different.
Defend on the comments you have made made. This work is published in
international journals and conferences.
It is correct.
Part II
Well , I respond politely number of time. But if someone does not
understand that language , then answer in his language,
(i) Dr Inpain , is not a CERN at all. He boasted THAT HE IS AT CERN
and runs Nuclear Reactors SO THAT HIS his wrong arguments are accepted
.

ON 28th Sep 2006 , I clarified then Head TP CERN said he is not at all
associated with CERN.
For CHEATS AND LIAR THEERE IS NO PLACE in scientific discussions.
He used absurd language, and he was served in that. AN YOU SEE THE
WORDS HE USED, FIRST When you are able to defend YOUR own WRONG
comments, now you remember him.
How you are wrong see the link ,
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein-is-in=
ventor-of-second-postulate.htm


Number of ties I asked him to write to the Editor of the journal, but
he did not.
HE COULD NOT DEFEND HIS ARGUMENTS SCIENTIFICALLY.

(ii) Your other quotation rambus2005@yahoo.com,
He too made absurd remarks. Now you talk about his NAMELESS
POST , where there is no mention of place he works and what is his
actual place.
God Bless you Dr Pasken,
This post is NOTHING nut my equations. Just put value of phi =3D98
then equations in the pot reduce to my equations.
This post confirms my equations and deductions.
What do you want MORE . Juts try to read and understand.

Par III

If You disagree then one can write to Editor Physics Essays
addressing the following issues.

What is Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 1905 paper?
What are conditions under which it is derived?
What is Planck=E2=80=99s observation regarding it?
Under what conditions experimentally it holds good?
Why Einstein did not generalize the same?
How to generalize it under all conditions?
What is Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s Interpretation?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s paper is different from Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 19=
05
paper.
How Editors/referees who have published it are WRONG?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s interpretation is incorrect (if it)?
What are the correct interpretations AND EQAUTIONS?
My paper answers all above questions.
It follows from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation under legitimate conditions,(=
in
some cases) that
when Light Energy is Emitted , mass of body INCREASES.
It is incorrect deduction from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation.

Part IV
References.

References of Einstein=E2=80=99s work
.
A=2EEinstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein=E2=80=99s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s work

My work is available at
A=2E Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1=2E Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3=2E A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4=2E A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5=2E A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6=2E A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=3Dmc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554

( book will be published in Dec 2006 , by NOVA Science in New York ,
USA)

AJAY SHARMA 6 NOV 2006



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:33:49
From: AJAY SHARMA
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary



rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > rpasken@eas.slu.edu wrote:
> > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > RMOLLISE wrote:
> > > > > AJAY SHARMA wrote:
> > > > > > Einstein's E=3Dmc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasen=
ohrl and
> > > > > > Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=3Dmc2. ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't the complete and utter lack on interest in and response t=
o your
> > > > > posts tell you ANYTHING? Please confine this to sci.astro or some=
other
> > > > > group where it will be welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "theories" are NOT welcome on sci.astro.amateur.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not only is your drivel not welcome on sci.astro.amateur, we understa=
nd
> > > your vain attempts to garner hits on your name and drivel so that you
> > > can claim you had an intelligent discussion of physics and Einstein's
> > > theories on your blog. I work with a lot of Indian scientists and am
> > > normally impressed with their understanding of maths and physics and
> > > the education system in India. You are living proof that not every one
> > > can be educated
> >
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Dr PASKEN
> > You have earlier made some comments on my paper that momentum is not
> > conserved in my paper.
> > I REQUESTED (in vain) IN LARGE NUMBER OF TIMES AND POSTED MEAGES ON
> > TENS OF FORUMS TO JUTIFY YOUR CLAIM.
> > Your name and address was also stated.
> > BUT TILL DATE IY ISNOT DONE.
> > It is not fair to abuse to others for your limitations.
> > FURHER YOU ARE MAKING SOME UNSCIETIFIC COMMENTS
> > ( on the basis of ethnic gropus)
> > Kindly don't to it. These can be counter productive.
> > Well ,
> > I give you my personal email
> > mc2.book@gmail.com
> > You an discuss any matter on it.
> > My work is published after peer review and can be challnged in
> > journals.
> > 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
> > (Book will be published in Dec. 2006 , By NOVA Science, New York,
> > USA)
> >
> > https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_3=
24&products_id=3D4554
> >
> > AJAY SHARMA
>
> You just do not understand do you? Not only have I have repeatedly
> pointed out your errors that indicate your lack of understanding of
> basic physics, but so have numerous other posters. These posters have
> tried in vain to show you that you do not understand simple physics.
> YOU have refered to these people as DONKEYS. When a poster used a play
> on words in his posting name (Dr. InPain@CERN) you did not understand
> the play on words and were foolish enough to contact CERN. At that
> point you called the poster a donkey. When Rambus2005 pointed out your
> errors you refered to the Rambus2005 as a donkey. When I praise the
> Indian education system you make claims that I am making ethnic slurs.
> I simply pointed out that YOU were poorly educated. No ethnic slur
> there! YOU have repeatedly failed to list ANY peer-reviewed journals
> and YOU have failed to respond to any of the discussion of the
> fundamental errors with anything but racial slurs.
>
> Once again here is where your errors are:
>
> http://gase1234.tripod.com/ASharma.pdf
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dr PASKEN,
Robert Pasken
Department of Earth and AtmosphericSciences
Saint Louis University
3507 Laclede Avenue
St.Louis, MO 63103
Part I
Your OBJETION was momentum is not conserved in my paper.
It is conserved, you are absolutely wrong. It is simple interpretation
of 11th class physics.
I have pasted my reply in number of posts, but you failed to respond. I
will again put it here..
See one link
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein-is-in=
ventor-of-second-postulate.htm

Kindly address this issue. Also see that I am polite in my posts , if
someone goes out of way , then things are different.
Defend on the comments you have made made. This work is published in
international journals and conferences.
It is correct.
Part II
Well , I respond politely number of time. But if someone does not
understand that language , then answer in his language,
(i) Dr Inpain , is not a CERN at all. He boasted THAT HE IS AT CERN
and runs Nuclear Reactors SO THAT HIS his wrong arguments are accepted
.

ON 28th Sep 2006 , I clarified then Head TP CERN said he is not at all
associated with CERN.
For CHEATS AND LIAR THEERE IS NO PLACE in scientific discussions.
He used absurd language, and he was served in that. AN YOU SEE THE
WORDS HE USED, FIRST When you are able to defend YOUR own WRONG
comments, now you remember him.
How you are wrong see the link ,
http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/post/2006/11/galileo-not-einstein-is-in=
ventor-of-second-postulate.htm


Number of ties I asked him to write to the Editor of the journal, but
he did not.
HE COULD NOT DEFEND HIS ARGUMENTS SCIENTIFICALLY.

(ii) Your other quotation rambus2005@yahoo.com,
He too made absurd remarks. Now you talk about his NAMELESS
POST , where there is no mention of place he works and what is his
actual place.
God Bless you Dr Pasken,
This post is NOTHING nut my equations. Just put value of phi =3D98
then equations in the pot reduce to my equations.
This post confirms my equations and deductions.
What do you want MORE . Juts try to read and understand.

Par III

If You disagree then one can write to Editor Physics Essays
addressing the following issues.

What is Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 1905 paper?
What are conditions under which it is derived?
What is Planck=E2=80=99s observation regarding it?
Under what conditions experimentally it holds good?
Why Einstein did not generalize the same?
How to generalize it under all conditions?
What is Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s Interpretation?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s paper is different from Einstein=E2=80=99s Sep 19=
05
paper.
How Editors/referees who have published it are WRONG?
How Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s interpretation is incorrect (if it)?
What are the correct interpretations AND EQAUTIONS?
My paper answers all above questions.
It follows from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation under legitimate conditions,(=
in
some cases) that
when Light Energy is Emitted , mass of body INCREASES.
It is incorrect deduction from Einstein=E2=80=99s derivation.

Part IV
References.

References of Einstein=E2=80=99s work
.
A=2EEinstein, Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641.
. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
Weblink is
Einstein=E2=80=99s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

PartII
References of Ajay Sharma=E2=80=99s work

My work is available at
A=2E Sharma, Physics Essays, 17 (2004) 195-222.
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf

For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554


International Conferences
It has been accepted for presentation over 55 conferences all over the
world
--------------------------------------few of them
1=2E Sharma, A. presented in 19th International Conference on the
Applications of Accelerators in Research and Industry , 20-25
August , 2006 Fort Worth Texas, USA

2. A. Sharma, Abstract Book 38th European Group of Atomic Systems
(
Euro physics Conference) Isachia (Naples) Italy (2006) 53.

3=2E A. Sharma , Abstract Book , A Century After Einstein Physics 2005 ,

10-14 April 2005 ( Organizer Institute of Physics , Bristol )
University of Warwick , ENGLAND

4=2E A. Sharma presented in 5th British gravity Conference , OXFORD
ENGLAND

5=2E A. Sharma,. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in
Sciences and Engineering 2003 World Scientific Co. USA ,
(2003) 585.
6=2E A. Sharma, Proc. Int. Conf. on Number, Time, Relativity United
Physical Society of Russian Federation, Moscow , (2004) 81
plus more
--------------------------------------
Journals
This paper
=E2=80=9DThe Origin of Generalized Mass-Energy Equation =EF=81=84E =3D Ac2 =
=EF=81=84M; and
its applications in General physics and Cosmology=E2=80=9D.
is published in journal
Physics Essays , CANADA
www.physicsessays.com
The paper
The past ,present and future of E=3Dmc2
will be published in 2007 Galilean Electrodynamics, Massachusetts,
USA.
In parts it is published in various others journals.
----------------------
Book 100 Years of E=3Dmc2
For details
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3D23_48_324&p=
roducts_id=3D4554

( book will be published in Dec 2006 , by NOVA Science in New York ,
USA)

AJAY SHARMA 6 NOV 2006



 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 10:54:30
From:
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur, sci.space.policy, alt.sci.planetary


<edited >

The accuracy (or lack thereof) of the original post is not the isuue.
The topic doesn't belong on sci.astro.amateur in any case. Further
discussion with the OP should be done via EMail.