The formula E = mc^2 has never been proven?

[Toan]

The formula E = mc² is estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in “Journal of the Optical Society Of America”, 42, 540 – 543. 1952. After that, nobody take author’s demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body:

m = m_o(1-(V/c)²)^-1/2 = m_o.γ (1)

together with the Newton’s 2 law:

F = d(mV)/dt (2)

for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!!

First, the itself formula (1) is estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity V in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass m_o in reference frame in which the body is at rest. That mind:

+ If a body moving with the velocity V₁, then we have: m₁ = m_o.γ₁;

+ If a body moving with the velocity V₂, then we have: m₂ = m_o.γ₂;

.....

+ If a body moving with the velocity V_n, then we have: m_n = m_o.γ_n;

....

where V₁, V₂, ... V_n are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the m₁, m₂...m_n are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass m as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: m = m(V), in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke – Lorenz’s transformation no longer effective – and then “how can we have the formula (1)?” That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V don’t change, so m must be don’t change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula E = mc²has never been proven ???

[Nate T.]

That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V don’t change, so m must be don’t change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula E = mc²has never been proven ???

Einstein fail physics? That's unpossible!

[dadmonson]

Here is an old thread on this topic...

http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=17822

[fountainhead777]

wow. maybe you are better than Einstein at physics(which i doubt) but your communication skills need some work. I would need a translator to decipher soem of that. I guess if you are doubtful of it follow the full research not just the peesentation of it. You might have missed details.

[Jake_Ellison]

m = m(V), in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke – Lorenz’s transformation no longer effective – and then “how can we have the formula (1)?”...is unpossible for derivation, because V don’t change

I actually read through that, after realizing that you're not talking about some high level physics problem, but some voodoo nonsense which resembles high school math, attempting to fool those who didn't pay attention at math in high school to believe you're competent.

So even though I didn't study physics in college, I know for a fact that it's BS. Here's why:

In the function m=m(V), V does change. If it didn't, then m wouldn't be a function.

What you're saying here, that m cannot be derived because V doesn't change, is nonsense (if V wasn't a variable, M wouldn't even be a function, just a number, so no sane person above the age of 15 would ever try to derive it - let alone Einstein. And no sane person who knows what a variable is would think that it isn't one).

I assume you have no understanding of high school math, and you're following some jackass who's preaching his alternative science (I would bet it involves either perpetuum mobile or Nostradamus), to those who know little enough and have little enough sense to buy it.

So go ahead, do your big plug. What's the website?

To fountainhead: I bet you don't. Just read it and you'll understand the (supposed) math easily.

[Ordr]

[Thales]

If you've got some big revolutionary point about physics, you don't present it to a bunch of non-physics majors. That's just ridiculous.

[softwareNerd]

For some reason a lot of people figure they're experts on Physics in a way that they never would assume about Biology (other than exercise and diet) or Chemistry. I wonder why that is.

[fountainhead777]

You know i though of this more and i think what he means by V not changing is that c, the speed of light, never changes so the velocity of E=mc^2 has a constant V. Still seems funky though

[Thales]

You know i though of this more and i think what he means by V not changing is that c, the speed of light, never changes so the velocity of E=mc^2 has a constant V. Still seems funky though

It's very simple (well, not really, but this part is). This is mass-energy equivalence. You have a unit of mass and the energy you get out of that unit of mass is E=mc^2. The atomic bomb is an example of E=mc^2 in action.

Now this is funky:

[Jake_Ellison]

You know i though of this more and i think what he means by V not changing is that c, the speed of light, never changes so the velocity of E=mc^2 has a constant V. Still seems funky though

That's the big connection, yes, in the mind of someone full of it. It's classic thinking by association. (and if someone told me that they wish to derive E=E( C ), I'd point and laugh. That's not a function, it's nonsense.) But that's not what's being derived, it's the function m=m(V), which dm(V)/dV is not zero, because V is a variable, not a number. If it was a number, m=m(V) would not be a function. (A constant function would be noted m(x)=V [still a function, not a number, btw., like C], and a function m=m0*V with a constant V, m=m(m0)=m0*V )

Theoretical math is not connected to physics, so it doesn't matter what those variables represent. The conditions (and results) of math methods will be always the same.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that the method this guy mentoned has anything to do with Eistein's work (I don't know that), I was just explaining why what he wrote is proof of total incompetence. (in basic mathematical analysis, and because of that, obviously, in physics as well-which relies on this stuff very early, way sooner than Einstein's work)

Edited February 8, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Zedic]

So even though I didn't study physics in college, I know for a fact that it's BS. Here's why:

In the function m=m(V), V does change. If it didn't, then m wouldn't be a function.

What you're saying here, that m cannot be derived because V doesn't change, is nonsense (if V wasn't a variable, M wouldn't even be a function, just a number, so no sane person above the age of 15 would ever try to derive it - let alone Einstein. And no sane person who knows what a variable is would think that it isn't one).

I have taken physics in college. I'm a senior with several advanced undergraduate courses under my belt, and currently enrolled in a graduate quantum class.

What the guy has right is an inertial reference frame doesn't change velocity V. Special relativity deals exclusively with constant velocity. Now, mass is technically a variable for mass m, for if a body of mass m is measured by an observer as traveling at 60% the speed of light at one instant and at 90% the speed of light another, the mass will to of appeared to of increased to the observer. The problem with special relativity is it deals with constant velocity. It breaks down when you try to incorporate acceleration, or the instantaneous rate of change of velocity. I believe that's what he meant when he said an "upheaval" in velocity ruins the theory. Einstein was well aware of this and corrected for it by expanding his theory to incorporate acceleration and gravity in what is known as his general theory of relativity.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Zedic